Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — ADVERTISEMENTS (HIRE PURCHASE) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(SHORT TITLE, ETC.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.6 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: It is in this Clause that the Bill is called the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act 1967. I submit that this is a wrong Short Title for the Bill. A Short Title cannot be resorted to for the purpose of interpretation of a Bill but it is important that it should be correct, and an ill-chosen one is a great inconvenience to the practitioner.
A Short Title should undoubtedly indicate the subject matter of the Act in words which are those under which the person seeking information on the subject might be expected to look. It should be chosen for convenience of reference for the identification of the subject matter of a Bill. It is not necessarily a description of the subject matter. The basic subject matter of this Bill is hire purchase, the Bill dealing with a part of the law relating to hire purchase—that is to say, the advertising of hire-purchase transactions.
I am sure that the seeker after the law on hire-purchase advertisements would be more likely to seek it under the title of hire purchase than under the title of advertisements. I cannot claim that there are no precedents for unhelp-

ful, cumbersome and unexpected titles to Bills. Perhaps the worst of these were among the law reform Acts—the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act and the Law Reform (Limitations of Actions), etc. Act. We need not continue that practice if we can possibly avoid it.
I do not wish to delay the House on matters of history but I remind hon. Members that Short Titles did not come into operation until fairly late in our history and that citation Clauses such as that which we are discussing appeared only in the early years of the last century. At the end of the last century a great deal of trouble was taken in setting out Short Titles to literally hundreds of Bills in the Short Titles Act, 1892, and the Short Titles Act, 1896. It is noticeable that the titles which were then chosen were chosen from the point of view of convenience.
I recollect that the Act which this Bill consolidates, the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957, was a Private Member's Bill. I assume that the private Member promoting the Bill chose the title. I recollect speaking for 67 minutes on the Bill. I will not do that this morning. However, I urge that as all the Hire-Purchase Bills and all the legislation has had the title hire purchase as the prime title, the Act of 1957 should be a Hire-Purchase Act and not an Advertisements Act.
Subsequently we had the Hire Purchase Act of 1964 which amended the 1957 Act. It is my earnest submission that this consolidation Bill would have been far more conveniently titled the Hire-Purchase (Advertisements) Bill rather than the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Bill. After all, we have Hire-Purchase Acts. We have no other Act that I know of which starts with the word "Advertisements". It is basically a Hire-Purchase Act and the proper title for it is the Hire-Purchase (Advertisements) Act.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): Whenever I am informed that a consolidation Bill is to come before the House I always wonder what scope for amendment the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will find. On this occasion he has excelled himself. He


wants to change the title of the Act, so that instead of it reading, Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act is will read Hire-Purchase (Advertisements) Act.
When I saw his proposed Amendment I was reminded of Act II, Scene II, of "Hamlet", when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern visit the Throne of Denmark. At the end of the scene the King says,
Thanks, Rosencrantz and gentle Guildenstern",
and the Queen says,
Thanks, Guildenstern and gentle Rosencrantz.
10.15 a m.
I think it was in precisely the same spirit that this Amendment was conceived. Nevertheless, since we have to draw these fine distinctions. I submit that the original title is more apposite.
This matter was first dealt with, as the hon. Gentleman has said, in 1957 when Parliament passed the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act. We are following the precendent on this occasion.
There are various ways of dealing with how one can distinguish Acts of Parliament. In some countries, for example, the Acts have a number. A Statute is Act 8, 1957, or whatever it may be. In this country we endeavour, perhaps not always with success, to identify Acts by their titles. The general rule is that when there is a composite title of this kind, there is, first, one expression and then another expression contained in brackets. The first expression refers to the genus and the second to the species. This is precisely what is done here. If hon. Members care to look at the Bill they will see that it deals with advertisements. It is a Measure entirely about advertisements, but limited to advertisements referring to hire purchase. Therefore, though there is no great merit one way or the other, I think that the title as it now appears in the Bill is the more appropriate one.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has treated the matter in this way. I appreciate his cultural, if a little facetious, reference to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I do not know whether he and I may be entitled to thanks on consolidation Bills or which one of us is the gentle one.
I urge again that when we have consolidation Bills of this sort we should look at the titles carefully and relate them to the subject which the Bill fits. Here it fits well into the subject of hire purchase. I imagine that at some future date we shall have a complete Hire-Purchase Consolidation Bill and then we shall have to change this one. It will not be an Advertisements Consolidation Bill; it will be a Hire-Purchase Consolidation Bill. I venture to forecast that this title will disappear eventually into oblivion and we shall have a complete Consolidation Hire-Purchase Bill. Whether its genus or species will be hire purchase, I do not know. I do not know the difference between those two words. At any rate, it will be the subject of hire purchase.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Question proposed, That this be the Third Schedule to the Bill.

10.18 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped, Sir Eric, that the Amendment on the Order Paper might have been selected. If not, I will address myself to the Third Schedule as a whole. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General will find there is anything ingenious about my argument on this. It is just plain commonsense.
The Third Schedule is headed "Enactments repealed". It states in the Third Schedule no fewer than three times that "The whole Act"—referring to The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949, The


Legal Aid Act 1960, and The Legal Aid Act 1964—is to be repealed. However, the Schedule does not mean what it says, because in Clause 21 it is clearly stated:
The enactments mentioned in Schedule 3 to this Act so far as relating to Scotland are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
In the marginal note on page 25, against Schedule 3, the words "Section 21" appear, but I have always been told that in interpreting an Act of Parliament one does not look at the marginal notes because they are not part of the Act. Any practitioner is at liberty to disregard what is in the margin. If he reads Schedule 3 and does not take the marginal note as part of the interpretation of the Schedule, the Schedule is completely wrong. The Schedule does not intend to repeal the whole of those three Acts—it intends to repeal them only for Scotland. The Legal Aid Act, 1960, the Legal Aid Act, 1964, and even a small part of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949, remain in operation for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Clause 21 provides that the enactments repealed are only partially repealed. That ought to have been said in the Schedule. The Schedule does not say that part of the Act has been repealed; it says that the whole of those Acts have been repealed, so the title "Enactments Repealed" is not only misleading but is entirely untrue. I would have thought that for the sake of accuracy we should import into the Schedule the words of Clause 21, so that the practitioner, turning up this Measure—or anyone else looking for the law—and reading the Schedule would know that it does not mean that the whole of the Acts to which I have referred have been repealed, but that the repeal extends only to Scotland.
If it had said that at the top of the Schedule the whole thing would have been clear. It would have meant only an extra six words. Surely the Government are not so stingy as not to wish to print six extra words, for the sake of clarity.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): Perhaps I may make the point clear. I am reminded, following the remarks of a previous speaker, of what happened to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern when Hamlet altered their schedules. It is normal drafting practice that the operative Clause states any necessary general limitation on the extent of the repeals and the side note to the Schedule refers back to the operative Clause. That is the practice in this Bill.
It is unlikely that any practitioner south of the border would pick up a Bill referring to legal aid in Scotland and think that it would have application anywhere else. I am glad to think that we have a law which is so popular south of the border, but I do not think that the hon. Member's suggestion is necessary, and in my opinion the Schedule should stand as it is.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member does not appreciate that the Acts referred to in the Schedule apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. The 1949 Act applies to the rest of the United Kingdom, because an Amendment had to be made in the Bill to account for the fact that the Scottish Bill referred to "diligence", and we have no such term as "diligence" in England; here it happens to be the execution on a person's goods. An Amendment had to be made in the consolidation Bill to put that right. So the practitioner in England or anywhere else who wants to know the English law has to look at the Scottish Act, because it affects the question of execution on goods in England. To say that these Acts are repealed is just not true.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

UNIFORM LAWS ON INTERNATIONAL SALES BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 1.—(APPLICATION OF UNIFORM LAW ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 2, after "States" insert "and in respect of what territories".

10.26 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Government Amendment was brought in in another place in order to remove doubts that had been expressed in the proceedings on the Bill in this House about the meaning of the words "contracting States" in Clause 1(5). This subsection provides for Orders in Council to be made stating what are the contracting states in which contracts of sale under the appropriate Articles of the Uniform Laws are to be applied by persons in the United Kingdom. Under Article XIII of the Convention a State which is a party to the Convention may declare that the Convention applies to all or to any of the territories for which it is responsible.
The proposed Amendment will enable an Order in Council to be made under subsection (5) to declare not only whether a State is party to the Convention but also to declare in respect of what territories it is a party. All this is essentially legalistic, but the Amendment will make the Orders in Council far more informative and will therefore help to remove some of the anxieties that have been expressed. It was then said that there was no proper provision for giving the full facts about the scope of the application of action which may be taken under the Convention.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby): The right hon. Gentleman has explained the position briefly, and has said that the Amendment dealt with essentially a legalistic point. I believe that it is also a very practical Amendment, and one which my hon. Friends and I would support. But although the House applauds the intention of the Amendment to

bring about uniformity in the terms employed in connection with the sale of goods between persons having places of business in different states, none of us has found it an easy Bill to understand.
When, at this stage—having successfully pieced together the jigsaw of events described in Clause 1—I am told that there is another piece of that jigsaw to be slotted into place, I have to go back to the beginning and start again and try to understand where it fits in. Clause 1 makes the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, as set out in the Annex to the 1964 Hague Convention, part of the law of the United Kingdom. It provides that it shall apply to a contract for the sale of goods if and only if the parties express the intention that it shall apply, as provided in subsection (3), and if and only if the places of business of the parties to the contract are in the territories of different contracting states, as mentioned in Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of Schedule 1.
What are not different States for this purpose are defined in Paragraph 5 of Article 1 of Schedule 1. I must stress that the Bill does not tell us what are different States; it tells us what are not different States. The two points arising on that, which are directly related to the Lords Amendment are, first, that the Convention itself is not part of the Bill, so that the declaration under Article 2, as described in Paragraph 5 of Article 1 of Schedule 1 is something of an unknown quantity. The Convention is not before us. We have only the Annex set out in Schedule 1.
10.30 a.m.
Secondly, the Bill does not tell us which are the contracting States. We shall not know for some time, and they must, therefore, be defined in the Bill instead of named. Clause 1(5) tries to overcome the difficulties that may arise when a matter comes before our courts. It answers the questions, "Who are the contracting States?" and, "When are two States not different States?", by saying that a declaratory Order in Council on them shall be conclusive.
But the answers to those two questions would not settle every case, and this is where the Lords Amendment comes in. As the right hon. Gentleman said, when a contracting State says that the uniform


law shall apply, under Article 13 of the Convention it can say whether it shall apply to the whole of that contracting State or to a part of its territories. Therefore, we need to know, if there is to be certainty in the application of our laws, whether a contracting State has made a limited ratification or signature of that nature, whether it has said when signing the contract, "This shall apply only to this part of our territory." This country itself will have to make limitations when it signs as a contracting State, because, for example, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands will make their own decisions as to whether to use the uniform laws and to ask for an Order in Council under Clause 4.
I understand that our dependent territories, which might well be considered as part of us as a State, will apply the uniform laws by means of their own legislation if they wish. But we shall then have to make a limitation excepting dependent territories when we sign as a contracting State. I give that as an example of how it will affect this country, but several Common Market and other countries which have dependent territories must be in the same position, and will wish to impose a limitation upon their signature to the Convention saying that some of their dependent territories are not to be included.
It is essential to businessmen and tradesmen in this country entering into contracts with people in other States not only to know which are contracting States to the Convention, and which States are to be grouped together as not being different States, but also to know the area of each contracting State to which the Act might apply. They might obtain that information from trade journals or the Board of Trade Journal or in some similar way. But, surely, the value of making an Order in Council under Clause 1(5) is that it will be conclusive evidence in the courts. The litigant will not be put to the expense of having to prove, say, that a certain territory in a certain State does or does not come within the Act.
Therefore, if we accept the Amendment, the Bill when it is an Act will not only be a better form of information to the businessman when he is contracting with those in other States, but it will be

of great assistance to the litigant, if any of those contracts come before our courts, that the court will be able to accept an Order in Council as conclusive evidence.

Mr. Darling: Perhaps I may say just a word about making the facts fully known to businessmen in this country. The Lords Amendment will not greatly help them. As the hon. Gentleman said, it will, of course, be a considerable help if litigation should arise, but as soon as we reach the point of issuing Orders in Council we intend to give the fullest publicity to the business community about the whole range of territories and the extent of the laws and so on to which the Orders in Council will apply.

Question put and agreed to.

PUBLIC RECORDS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(REDUCTION OF PERIOD FOR WHICH CERTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS MUST HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THEM TO BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION.)

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it your intention, Sir Eric, to call the Amendment in page 1, line 15, at the end to add:
Provided that no exceptions beyond the period of thirty years shall be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor affecting Irish affairs.
and the new Clause "Availability of public records affecting Irish affairs", which stand in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)?

The Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot select either the Amendment or the new Clause.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.36 a.m.

Mr. Foot: I am sorry that the Amendment and new Clause could not be selected. I shall not discuss that question now, but obviously discussion on the Question, That the Clause stand part—

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment and new Clause are out of order, being outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Foot: I live and learn, and I hope that I shall live for quite a long time in order to be able to learn even more. I understand from reading the Clause that it should enable us to have a discussion which could embrace a large number of aspects of the matter and our discussion on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, might be wider than on the Amendment or new Clause, had they been in order.
I am very glad to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. West in the general proposition which we wished to put in the Amendment and new Clause and to which I wish to refer in my remarks on the Question that we are now discussing. We hope for certain guarantees or assurances from the Government about how the Bill will be operated when it becomes an Act before we agree with this Motion.
As I said on Second Reading, the general purposes of the Bill seem to be very good. I am glad that the Government have introduced this Measure, and the Prime Minister in particular deserves our gratitude for having taken the initiative in securing a reduction from 50 to 30 years in the general period of the restrictions imposed on the examination of the documents concerned. Therefore, we did not put down the Amendment and new Clause and we do not seek to raise the matter now in any sense because we wish to impede the Bill. All that we want is, as usual, to improve the Bill and make sure that it is not marred by any of the matters referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in his speech on Second Reading. When I heard the Attorney-General last Monday, I was flabbergasted. Considering some of the events of the past year or two, I do not flabbergast easily, but I was flabbergasted to hear his reference to certain papers relating to Irish affairs.
Under the Bill, restrictions are imposed on matters which are not to be covered by the 30-year rule, and where the 50-year rule is to be maintained or there is to be an even longer period. I can well understand that that should be so with

matters concerning distress or embarrassment to living people or references to criminal or prison records which, if revealed, might cause embarrassment, difficulty or hardship to individual persons. Those are reputable matters for a Government or Lord Chancellor to have in mind when they impose restrictions. Some of us might also be reticent about giving our approval, as the Attorney-General said, to the examination of certain exceptionally sensitive papers which affect the security of the State. But I cannot see that such security matters would be likely to prevail after 30 or 40 years in most cases, but I suppose that there can be such matters.
What I object to most strongly or find most extraordinary is the selection, as a special category, of certain papers relating to Irish affairs. We tried to obtain from the Attorney-General an indication of what were these "certain papers". The first answer which he gave was not very elaborate. He said that there was
a sensitive area in regard to Irish affairs which remains".
Later, when replying to the debate, he said:
The only ones which are restricted are certain records dealing with what are commonly called the troubles'".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 29–34.]
I am not sure exactly what dates the Government put upon "the troubles". Sometimes they refer solely to the period between 1920 and 1923. Sometimes the dates are extended. But, whatever they may be, I cannot understand why the Government should have wished to impose this special restriction.
I cannot imagine the Government saying, "We are very glad to make this relaxation of the 50 year rule, but we must make sure that certain papers referring to Irish affairs are specially protected". I cannot imagine a man of the liberal mind of the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General, or even of the Solicitor-General, making such a restriction unless some representations had been made. Therefore, the Committee should know whether any representations have been made to the Lord Chancellor and the Government which led them to interpolate this extraordinary sentence about certain papers relating to Irish affairs.
It is conceivable that representations were made by the Official Opposition. The


Bill has been brought forward as a consensus Measure. That may be naturally suspicious in the first place. But, apparently, the Government have had the advice of the Leader of the Opposition on it. We are sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be here to assist us with that advice, but we are very glad to see the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), who I am sure will tell us, if the Government do not, whether any representations about Irish affairs, in particular, have been made by the Opposition.
That would not be a novel occurrence. We all know what happened when the war broke out in 1914 and the whole future of this country, as many believed, was at stake. Some accommodation, it was thought, had to be reached between the Government of Mr. Asquith and the Tory Opposition. When the guns had already started firing and Mr. Bonar Law went to see Mr. Asquith, there was one condition which he wished to extract from the Government before the Conservative Party would give its support to the Government. The condition was that the Home Rule Bill should be withdrawn. That was priority No. 1 of the Conservative Party—that freedom should still be denied to the Irish people. Only if that condition was satisfied was the Conservative Party willing to join the Government and support the 1914 war.
If that was the attitude of a Conservative leader in 1914, I suppose that it is conceivable that in 1967 another Leader of the Conservative Party would say to the Government, "We do not mind agreeing with you that the period should be reduced from 50 to 30 years, but we must insist on the protection of those who were involved in dealing with Irish affairs between, say, 1916 or 1917 and 1923 or 1924." That is one possible explanation. If any representations were made by the Conservative Party on this matter, I should hope that the Committee and the country, and particularly the people of Ireland, would hear of it. Although there may not be a great number of Members assembled here today to discuss this matter, I am sure that there are many people in other parts, particularly across the Irish Sea, who are interested in the Government's attitude to these matters.
10.45 a.m.
Therefore, my first question is whether any representations were made by the Conservative Party, and, if so, what was the Government's response. But, assuming that no representations were made, how was it that this provision got into the Government's declaration? There seems to be some peculiar machinery in the Government's legislative apparatus whereby any Measure has to be stamped with this consensus stamp, and there must be some organisation—I do not know how many civil servants one would employ on the task—to consider every Measure to ensure that it satisfies all opinions over the past 40 or 50 years.
It appears that that has happened in this instance, because I cannot believe that the Government thought this up by themselves or that they said, "We must protect this matter". It may be that somebody looks back at previous discussions—perhaps at the 1958 Bill which followed on the examination of the whole of public records and how they should be used. Or it may be that at the time when we had a Conservative Government it was agreed that "certain papers affecting Irish affairs". to use the sinister phrase, should be excluded and that the practice has been carried over from 1958 to 1967 without anybody very much knowing how it occurred. I should like to know whether that is the explanation. It would have been much better if the Government had looked at the matter afresh and not adopted this appalling exclusion.
I come to the merits of the matter. What are the matters which the Government or Lord Chancellor might think it would not be proper to discuss at this date? I looked up the speech of the Lord Chancellor in another place to see whether any guidance was given on the point. His speech was very erudite, as one would expect, on other matters, but he made no reference to this question except possibly to say that special provision should be made to ensure that matters affecting people who might still be in public life and which could be used by foreign propagandists should not be referred to.
I suppose that it is conceivable that the Government, out of a special sensitivity towards Mr. de Valera, would say, "We must not have discussion of these


matters". I see the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington nodding. I do not think that Mr. de Valera would mind. He has not anything to be ashamed of in what he did in 1916. Indeed, he walked through the streets of Dublin quite recently celebrating the events of 1916, and, so far from people in Ireland being ashamed of what happened in 1916, many individuals who did not support the events of that time have been gratified to be associated with them. Therefore, I do not think that Mr. De Valera is likely to object to anything which may be revealed.
The other day I went to Ireland to assist in a small way in the celebrations of the tercentenary of the birth of Jonathan Swift. I was privliged to hear the President of the Irish Republic make a speech on Irish affairs which showed that he is still in the fullest possession of his faculties. I am sure that if the Government wished to protect his reputation, all that they would have had to do would he to say to him, "When we change the 50 year rule, would you mind if we made sure that it applied to Irish affairs in exactly the same way as it applied to English affairs?", and they would had an immediate "Yes" I therefore hope that we can dispose of the suggestion that the Government have done this because they desire to protect Mr. De Valera.
I come now to consider other matters which some people, but not, I hope, the Government, would wish to conceal. There are certainly the questions of 1916 and the barbarous executions which took place afterwards and the instructions which may have been given. Most of the history has been revealed, but there is no reason why the Labour Government of 1967 should wish to conceal anything done by the Government of 1916.
To come to a later date, there are the events which are more accurately described as the "period of the troubles". What is it that a Labour Government would wish to conceal? We want all the facts to be known. The Labour Party of that day had a very fine record in these matters. The Labour Party's attitude to all the Irish affairs in the period between 1916 and 1924 was one of the finest chapters in Labour history.
The Labour Party have nothing for which to apologise. They stood for Irish freedom. They foretold that the Government would have to concede freedom to the people of Ireland and they put forward proposals for achieving it which would have been considerably better than those which were subsequently achieved and which, indeed, might have saved the world from bloodshed.
Some of the most recent historians who have written about this matter have greatly praised the attitude, for example, of the late Mr. George Lansbury and others during that period. If their proposals had been accepted in 1914, whole rivers of blood would have been saved. There is no reason why the Labour Government should not wish to have these matters revealed.
Speaking personally—and this may strike a note in the stony heart of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—when my father first came to this House, one of the matters in which he was principally interested was the Irish question. He voted against the Lloyd George Coalition on many matters, but partly because of the record of the Black and Tans. Some of the first Questions that he put in the House referred to Irish affairs. There were many Members of the Liberal Party at that time, as my father was, who had an estimable record on Irish affairs and saved the reputation of the Liberal Party from what was being done in the name of those who were in the Government at the time.
I am sorry that there are no members of the Liberal Party present to participate in our proceedings this morning, but we are here to sustain the reputation of those of them who deserve to be sustained as well as of the Labour Party.
Whatever may be the desires, therefore, of people in other quarters to suppress the truth in so far as it was revealed in Government documents about what happened at that time, I insist that the Labour Party should have no desire to do so and, indeed, has no right to do so. Therefore, far from there being any provision about preventing the revelation of certain papers relating to Irish affairs, a Labour Government should have a proper interest in ensuring that those matters are revealed.
There are, however, others who might have an interest in suppressing the truth about what occurred at that time, and they are the beneficiaries of that settlement. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who represents part of the six counties, sitting opposite me. He and his party were the principal beneficiaries of the settlement of 1920. They have had a Unionist Government there for 40 years as a result of what was done then. If, therefore, there is anything murky about what was done, it is natural that he and his friends should wish to conceal it. In my opinion, they have a great deal to conceal.
As I read the history, there was certainly a profound misunderstanding between the British Government and Michael Collins and Arthur Griffiths, two men who paid with their lives for their bravery. They understood—at least, they thought that they had been led to understand—that the settlement was not the conclusive settlement which the Unionist Party in the six counties claimed it to be. They thought that there would be a Boundary Commission which inevitably, if it was fair, would give a different settlement of the whole proceedings. It was a Boundary Commission such as many of the other Boundary Commissions in the six counties since then. It set the style of subsequent affairs.
I have read many of the recent contributions in Ireland to the history, and there has been a great development of historical understanding of it in recent years which some people regard as a revolution in historical thinking in Ireland on these matters. At least, one of the matters on which the latest scholarship is generally agreed is that there was a basic misunderstanding about the agreement which Michael Collins and Arthur Griffiths had signed. What is the truth about this?

The Chairman: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but there are limits beyond which we cannot go in detail into what happened in Ireland in the 1920s. It is open to the hon. Member to probe what was meant by the Attorney-General on Second Reading, but in the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we cannot go in great detail into Irish history in the 1920s.

Mr. Foot: I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there must be limits to all debates, but I should have thought that this was one of the widest ever. It was my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General who said:
The only ones which are restricted are certain records dealing with what are commonly called 'the troubles'".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 34.]
That is a very broad description.

The Chairman: Perhaps I may help the hon. Member. The Question which we are debating is whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. What the Clause does is to reduce the period of 50 years to 30 years. That is the only question before us.

Mr. Foot: By raising these matters, which I would have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are generally within the bounds of the debate, I am seeking to illustrate that it would be a grave departure from the general purpose of the Bill if the kind of restrictions which were indicated by the Attorney-General on Second Reading were to be enforced. What some of us are arguing for in this debate is that it should be made clear, either by a general undertaking of the Government or, perhaps, a special statement which the Government may bring from the Lord Chancellor, that they do not intend to apply these restrictions to certain special papers of Irish affairs. If that response to what we are proposing can come from the Government, we will have achieved what we desire. It is clear that we cannot press that argument successfully with the chance of influencing what may be later said unless we can give illustrations of what may be the reasons for the suppression which has surprised us so greatly.
My last reason why there might be a suppression is that some people might have an interest in the suppression. Naturally, we look for those who profited from the crime. Therefore, we look to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have profited from the crime and who continue to hold their positions in the House as a result of the affairs that took place in Ireland between the years 1917 and 1922.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Apart from the rules of order, there are limits to which the facts can


be stretched. The Boundary Commission to which the hon. Member has referred was set up by this House. The resignation which took place from it was of the Southern Ireland representative, who resigned because the findings had allegedly been leaked to the Morning Post and were not as favourable to Southern Ireland as he had expected.

Mr. Foot: I am in no way saying that the Government of Northern Ireland was responsible for the gerrymandering under the Boundary Commission at that time. Other Governments as well as the Northern Ireland Government can gerrymander. My reference to gerrymandering must not lead to the conclusion that I am referring to the activities of the Northern Ireland Government.
We are seeking to get the full documents about the Boundary Commission and its operation, and, in particular, the full revelation of the undertakings made by the British Government to the Irish representatives and whether those undertakings bore the later interpretations of the Government and the Boundary Commission or whether they bore the interpretation which Michael Collins and others put upon them at that time. Since this played such an essential part in the foundation for 40 years of Unionist power, we have a right to probe it to the bottom.
I hope that the Government will review this matter seriously. I do not raise it in any flippant sense. It is important that the historical facts should be revealed and that students from this country and in Ireland should have the fullest access to what was done. As far as I know, in Dublin all the details which are available have been revealed. If there are any which are concealed, I hope that the Government there will be prepared to reveal them as well.
I have read some of the principal books on the subject—for example, the masterly book written by a member of the Government, the Leader of the Government in another place, Lord Longford, who wrote an estimable book on the subject in the year 1935. He said at that time that the details that he required from the Irish side had been made fully available to him: there had been, as far as he could see, no restriction.
We ask that there should be no restriction from our side. Whatever may be the pressures from any quarter—whether from the official Opposition, whether it be Unionist pressure, or whether it be pressure from any other quarter—the Labour Government should make up their own mind on the matter and not be content with an agreement with the other parties involved.
Twenty or thirty years ago a commentator on Irish affairs said this:
When in office, the Liberals forget their principles and the Tories remember their friends.
The last remark was not made in a complimentary sense. I hope that a Labour Government in office will remember their principles, remember their friends, and also remember their enemies. I hope that we shall enable the whole of Ireland and the people of the world to know fully and clearly what was done in our name in those years, because it may help to guard against the same crimes and the same follies being committed in other territories in the future.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) into the Irish matters which he raised, except to say that by his last sentence or two he tended to give away some game—I do not know which game—when he abjured the Solicitor-General to remember the friends but not the enemies of the Government.
I want briefly to talk about some other matters arising on the Clause. I have in common with you, Sir Eric, a very remote interest, in that we are both members of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, which deals with private records. The Clause deals with the substitution of a 30-year rule for the 50-year rule in relation to public records. In trying to discover what public records were I consulted the 1958 Act. The first Schedule contains a very clear and exact description of what are public records to which the Clause applies. Part II of the First Schedule provides that the National Coal Board is a body whose records are public records for the purposes of the Clause.
Why does the Clause apply only to the National Coal Board and not to the


14 other separate nationalised undertakings? I would not be certain that it was right that their records should be recorded by the Public Record Office or by some other record office, but it would seem logical and correct that the records of all the nationalised industries should be treated in exactly the same way. It is just as important that records of the Airways Corporations or of the Electricity Council or of any other body—perhaps records relating the history of the nationalisation, denationalisation and renationalisation of steel—should be kept and held for the public.
Why is only one industry included? Is it intended to hold up the making available of these records for 30 years? There is no reason why these records should not be made public much earlier than that. As soon as any commercial questions about intentions to buy land or to do any financial transactions have been got out of the way, there is no reason why the records should not be made available. It may well be that they are.
I should be grateful if the Solicitor-General would tell us how the Clause is to apply to the records of public enterprises, and particularly why only one of the 15 separate public industrial enterprises appears in the First Schedule to the 1958 Act, which defines the application of the Clause.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: It will come as no surprise to the Committee to learn that I personally am taking a great deal of interest in the Bill. When its Second Reading was moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General last Monday, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), was disappointed that this restriction on Irish documents was embodied in it. As the Attorney-General continued his speech, as an Irishman I took great exception to the reasons which he gave for the restriction being placed on documents relating to Irish affairs. He said this:
There is a sensitive area in regard to Irish affairs which remains, and I do not think it would be prudent for me to pursue it on the Floor of the House. But there are papers which it would not be in the interests of this country to disclose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 29.]

I take it that the Attorney-General would be reluctant to make all the papers relating to the Irish troubles available, on the grounds that there availability might detract from or injure this country's reputation. As an Irishman, I have no hesitation in saying that, if the documents were published 50 years after the event, all people of Irish birth, whether they reside in the island of Ireland or in the far-flung corners of the world, would have nothing to be ashamed of in any happenings during what the Attorney-General described as the period of "the troubles".
The Attorney-General was questioned about the length of the period, whether it would run from 1920 to 1923. Most people in Ireland accept that the period of the troubles in Ireland began in 1912. That is outside the 50-year limit and well outside the 30-year limit. One of the first steps which was taken to bring about this rather troubled period in Irish affairs was taken in Northern Ireland in 1912, when members of the Unionist Party made it public that, if they did not have their own way in relation to the political situation as it was developing in Northern Ireland, they would have no hesitation in kicking the King's Crown into the Boyne. From then on we had a series and a sequence of events.
We in Ireland are well aware that a good number of these documents are at present in the hands of the British Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said that one of the most important documents which is in the hands of the British Government at the moment, and for whose publication we are now pleading, is the Report of the Boundaries Commission of 1925. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) would agree that the publication of all the facts and circumstances relating to the deliberations of the 1925 Boundary Commission could be accepted at this period of time by all the people in the island of Ireland.
I cannot understand the reluctance of the Government, particularly of the Attorney-General. I have a cutting from a liberal Unionist newspaper in Northern Ireland, a paper which in recent years has tried in every way possible to bring about a better community spirit—the Belfast Telegraph. Last Tuesday, the day


after the Bill received its Second Reading, the paper wrote an editorial mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and saying:
As Mr. Michael Foot pointed out at Westminster, there is no real reason why a double standard should be applied with regard to the publication of State papers dealing with the period of the troubles.
Further on, it says:
The survival of such bones of contention only affords the opportunity for less progressive politicians to make political capital cheaply. The sooner the realities of Irish history are faced up to, the healthier will be the political climate generally.
In view of that, the Attorney-General should have no reluctance to make provision for the publication of these records, when people north and south of the border in Ireland would be prepared to accept all the findings reported in them. It has been accepted that the troubles in Ireland began in 1912 if not before, they finished in 1923 or 1924, and, finally, there was the Boundary Commission of 1925.
Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Irving, told my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that hon. Members could attempt to elicit what documents were embargoed and could not be published and which documents at present are in the archives of the British Government. In view of that, I wish to put some specific questions to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and ask him about documents which, in the view of the people of Ireland, it would be interesting to see published.
First, there exists a report of the minutes of Cabinet meetings held in 1912, when the Northern Ireland Unionists and Tories were threatening to kick the King's Crown into the Boyne if they did not have their way. The discussions which took place at that time would be extremely illuminating, not only to Irish people but to members of the British public generally.
Second, I am certain that there must be a report of the Cabinet meeting which was concerned with the Curragh Mutiny, in which British generals stationed in Ireland came out in open rebellion against their own Government over the steps proposed to be taken in Irish affairs.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman is in order in probing the statement about sensitive documents and trying to elicit which documents these may be. However, I think that he is going too far if he goes outside the period dealt with in this Bill. The Bill has the single purpose of reducing the period. He cannot question the discretion used in the previous Measure, but only that which will be exercised under this Bill.

Mr. Fitt: The period of 30 years embodied in the Bill would allow the publication of these documents, unless some restriction was placed upon them by the Government. However, a restriction has been placed on them by the learned Attorney-General on the ground of the sensitivity of such documents dealing with Irish affairs. The period between 1912 and 1914 is outside the 50-year limit, and it is even further outside the 30-year limit. Assuming that the documents exist, I am attempting to elicit from my hon. and learned Friend if there is any possibility of representations being made by the Lord Chancellor to make provision for their publication.
I have referred to the Curragh Mutiny. In 1914 we had the Larne and Howth gun-runnings—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the point which I suggested was outside the scope of the Bill. He can only talk about the difference made in the law in respect of the period of time. He can only raise matters about documents which come within the 20-year period, between the original 50-year limit and the 30-year limit imposed by the Bill.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Fitt: Mr. Irving, you have certainly opened up a wide scope, because it means that we now have from 1917 onwards—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. My purpose is not deliberately to restrict the hon. Gentleman but to apply the rules of order.

Mr. Fitt: Before you intervened, Mr. Irving, I had already decided to skip the period which is outside the scope of the Bill. The Larne and Howth gun-runnings were in 1914, which is just outside the


scope of the Bill, when there must have been many Cabinet meetings on the situation in Ireland.
In the period between the 50-year and 30-year limits, we have 1917, which was the year after the rebellion and the executions which took place subsequent to Easter week, 1916. Later on in those years, we had the formation of the B Specials, the formation of the Black and Tans, the formation of the Auxiliaries, the burning of Cork City, and all the attendant Cabinet meetings which took place during the Treaty discussions in 1918 and 1919 prior to the partitioning of Ireland in 1920.
I am sure that the overwhelming mass of people in the United Kingdom, particularly those with connections with the trade unions and the working-class movement who have a proud record in their defence of the stand which was taken by the Irish people, would raise no objection to the publication of such documents, and certainly no objections would be raised by the Government of the Republic.
It is particularly vital at this period in our history that all the facts and circumstances relating to the Government of Ireland Act and the 1925 Boundary Commission should be made public not only to the Irish people but to historians in general. No discussion which takes place in this House will change the political climate which exists in Ireland, and certainly publication of the documents will not change it. In the years which lie ahead, I would not be prepared to say that we should maintain the unnatural partition and mutilation of Ireland.
Between 1917 and today, the situation has been extremely complicated, with many personalities and tortuous conflicts on the Irish political scene, and it would be more honest of the British Government if they were to take the steps which I am asking for this morning to ensure that the full light of public opinion should be thrown on the incidents which took place at that time.
Within the period which you have specified that we can discuss, Mr. Irving, we have the year 1919, but when discussions took place between the Irish plenipotentiaries and the British Government on the Treaty which eventually resulted in the partition of Ireland. That is most important in relation to the subsequent

Boundary Commission in 1925. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said that there was a Commission in 1925 and that its findings had been accepted. I hope to be able to disprove that.
The Treaty can be read in the Library. In Article 12, it was made clear that a Commission was to be set up in 1925, and it stated explicitly the problems which the Commission would have to deal with in that year, after a four or five-year lapse from the coming into operation of the Government of Ireland Act.
A Commission consisting of three persons, one to be appointed by the Government of the Irish Free State one to be appointed by the Government of Northern Ireland and one who shall be chairman to be appointed by the British Government, shall determine, in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries between Northern and the rest of Ireland, and for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of this instrument, the boundary of Northern Ireland shall be such as may be determined by such Commission.
This is one of the documents which has not yet been made public, and the Irish people are unaware of what was discussed and the deliberations which took place in the Commission.
The motive underlying Article 12 is clear, understandable, and very succinct. It meant that the Boundary Commission, when it was set up in 1925, would take into account the boundaries which then existed between Northern Ireland and the Free State, with particular reference to the wishes of the inhabitants in that area. The hon. Member for Londonderry, said that the Commission met and deliberated, but we have not got the Commission's report, and we do not know what its findings were. All we know is that it did not change the geographical division of Ireland at that time.
This document is in the hands of the British Government, and I am certain that my hon. Friends on this side, and even hon. Members on the benches opposite, would be happy to see all the documents relating to this Commission made available to the public. All the more advanced and progressive thinkers in Northern Ireland would like this document to be made public, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will today get away from the fear which was expressed by the Attorney-General, because the people


in Northern Ireland are prepared now to accept what happened 50 years ago. We want to be made aware of all the aspects of what happened at that time.
There is in existence a letter from Mr. Lloyd George, the then Prime Minister, to Sir James Craig, on the subject of the Boundaries Commission. It was written in 1921, the day before the Irish Treaty was signed. He enclosed a copy of the Treaty, and said:
You will observe that there are two alternatives between which the Government of Northern Ireland is invited to choose. Under the first, retaining all her existing powers, she will enter the Free State with such additional guarantees as may be arranged in Conference. Under the second alternative she will retain her present powers, but in respect of all matters not already delegated to her will share the rights and obligations of Great Britain. In the latter case, however, we should feel unable to defend the existing boundary, which must be subject to revision on one side and the other by a Boundary Commission under the terms of the instrument.
We had the Boundaries Commission, and I think that those words must be taken to mean what they say, that the Commission's main function would be to go into the whole question of the geographic division of Ireland, either to consolidate the position as it was, or to make recommendations for changes, but no one in Ireland knows what the, Commission recommended. The documents have not been made available. I think that the Irish people are entitled to know what discussions were held.
On 7th December, 1922, the Northern Ireland Government voted for exclusion from the Free State as it was, and, following on the letter to which I have just referred, it was clear that if the Northern Ireland Government were to take this step of exclusion from the rest of the Free State, when the Commission came into operation it would be charged with finding out the opinions as expressed by the majority of the inhabitants of the six counties as to what their political future should be. It was accepted then that Tyrone and Fermanagh would opt out of the six counties state as it was.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said that during the negotiations with Lloyd George about the bringing into operation of the Treaty, Griffiths and Collins had been told that if they accepted the terms of the Treaty Northern Ireland would be excluded

from the six-year period, that the Commission would sit in 1925, that the will of the inhabitants on a county by county basis would be taken into account, and that in those circumstances Tyrone and Fermanagh would certainly opt for inclusion into the Free State, which would make a four county state in Northern Ireland completely insupportable. This was the impression left with Griffiths and Collins.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Impressions are excluded from the purpose of the Bill. The hon. Member is going a little wide of the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. He must relate his remarks to the reasons for the sensitivity about these documents.

Mr. Fitt: Mr. Irving, I realised that I would find it rather difficult in this House to advance the arguments which I would like to put forward. It is a long time since we have had a debate in this House on the Irish question, but, having been elected to represent Belfast, West, as a Republican Labour Member, the onus is on me to speak as an Irishman and as a Socialist in all debates in this House, irrespective of the limits which will be imposed on me.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The House has not challenged the vigour with which the hon. Member has pursued his case. I hope that he will relate his remarks to the Question now being, considered.

Mr. Fitt: The report of the 1925 Boundary Commission is one document which I would like to see made public, because on the deliberations of this Commission rests the whole structure of the Governments which now exist in Northern Ireland and the Republic.
I have here a document, which I shall not read, relating to the negotiations between Lloyd George and the Irish Plenipotentiaries. They were clearly left with the impression that the Commission would in effect ensure that partition would not take place, but later he wrote a letter—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member is going into the merits of these issues, rather than discussing the question before the House which is whether they should be kept as sensitive papers and not released. The


hon. Member must devote himself more to the Question before the House.

Mr. Fitt: I am trying to illustrate the conflicting opinions which were expressed in dealings with the Irish Plenipotentiaries in letters to Sir James Craig and other personalities of the day by the then Prime Minister. We have three different stories. We have the then Prime Minister telling Michael Collins that he did not want the partition of Ireland and that two counties would opt for inclusion in an Irish Republic which would make four counties uneconomic and non-viable so that they could not last. There was a letter to Sir James Craig saying that if he excluded himself from the Irish Free State there would have to be a Boundary Commission. Later, Lloyd George wrote saying that "under no circumstances would Ulster, whether she will it or not," become part of the Irish Free State.
11.30 a.m.
In view of this apparent conflict, the only way of settling it is to publish the Report of the 1925 Boundary Commission. It was set up by the British Government, with a representative of the Free State, Professor Eoin Neill, and a nominee. No nominee was appointed by the N.I.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude to demonstrate the conflict which requires the publication of these documents, but he is now going into much too much detail. I must ask him to leave this part of the subject and come to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Fitt: I think I have sufficiently illustrated the importance of the Boundary Commission's Report, Mr. Irving.
I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend a number of questions. First, is there in existence the minutes of a Cabinet meeting in 1916 about whether Roger Casement should be executed or not? Is this one of the documents which the British Government are prepared to keep in the dark archives? Is there a document explaining the part of Sir Basil Thompson in the Casement trial, with particular regard to the Casement Diaries? Is there a document which would throw light on the part of the

British Government in the burning and ransacking of the City of Cork in 1920? If these documents exist, that would indicate something to the Irish people.
How did the Black and Tan force come into being? Was the decision taken by the British Government or by people outside British political circles? What were the reasons for bringing this force on to the political scene, and do the British Government stand by the actions which this force committed?
I could stand here for the next three weeks and expatiate on this subject, but I know that I would not be permitted to do so. This restriction on the publication of various documents is unacceptable to the Irish people and to the vast majority of the British people as a whole. I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Members for Down, South and Londonderry in asking for this restriction to be lifted and for no double standards to be applied, and that all documents within the purview of the Bill should receive equal treatment.
The Solicitor-General said that one of the reasons for the restrictions on documents relating to Irish affairs was that this was still an unduly sensitive area. However, the opinions expressed in the House this morning by the two hon. Members with political opinions violently different from my own show that they would be prepared for this publication, as both the authorities in the South would raise no objection. Therefore, who has been making representations or is feeling unduly sensitive?
I could understand it if the hon. Members from Northern Ireland opposite did not want them published, because they would have reason to be sensitive, but they have said that they are not sensitive, so the only people who can be sensitive are the present British Government. As a Socialist, I fail to understand this, because the British Socialist movement has played a great part in defence of the Irish people in all their struggles against the imperialism foisted upon them by a Tory Government.
I make a final appeal to the Solicitor-General. In view of the opinions expressed that the Irish people are not reluctant to see these documents published, and to help to ensure that they are brought into the light of day, would he


not, even at this late stage, say that the Government would be prepared, if representations were made by Irish authorities to publish them?

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I am glad that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) reminded us that he was an Irish Republican—

Mr. Fitt: A Republican Socialist.

Captain Orr: Very well, a Republican Socialist—because one might have thought from his indignation at the prospect of the Crown being kicked into the Boyne that he had suddenly become a Royalist—

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member is mistaken.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member has had a long session and he might allow someone else to speak for a change.
I support the general proposition behind the Amendments which were not called that, generally, the restriction should not apply to Irish documents—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot, on this Question, argue that restrictions should not apply. He can urge that the discretion under the Bill should be exercised in a particular way, but he may discuss only what is in the Clause.

Captain Orr: Perhaps I did not express myself very well, Mr. Irving, but that is precisely what I was doing.
The Government's handling of this matter is very strange. Had they intended the Lord Chancellor to exercise his discretion to prevent the disclosure of certain Irish documents which were sensitive, is it not strange that they should announce this in advance? Surely one of the ways to make persons most interested in sensitive documents is to suggest that some of them are so sensitive that they cannot be published.
This prompts me to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) as to whether or not there have been any representations about the matter. I hope that he will not take the attitude, "Let not my left Foot know what my right Foot is doing." I hope that he will give an

answer, because there is a strong suspicion that he has had representations from the Irish Government.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale mentioned Mr. De Valera, who is still alive. No one would wish anything to be published which embarrassed him. But we should know whether this is one of the reasons for the proposed exercise of discretion.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I am not clear as to the documents to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers.

Captain Orr: I am talking about the documents to which the Attorney-General referred. He spoke of papers relating to Irish affairs. If the Solicitor-General does not know which documents they are, then we really are in trouble.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to certain documents. He gave no indication of the documents which he had in mind. My inquiry was directed to that point.

Captain Orr: I was referring to the documents which the Attorney-General said were certain papers "relating to Irish affairs", which were still sensitive. I hope that the Solicitor-General will tell us what those papers are and whether he has had any representations about whether the Lord Chancellor should exercise his discretion in relation to them.
We in Northern Ireland have nothing to fear from publication of the truth. The Ulster history and the resistance to home rule and our determination to remain within the United Kingdom and everything done to that end constitute something of which we are intensely proud. I therefore hope that the relevant papers will be published.
In particular, I hope that the papers to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West referred concerning the Boundary Commission of 1925 will be published. The most prevalent impression of what happened then is that the Boundary Commission, set up by the House of Commons, was about to report and there was a leak in the Morning Post of the day which suggested that, far from what the hon. Member for Belfast, West thought would happen, the Commission would report in the opposite sense and a large


portion of East Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan would be included in Northern Ireland and that because of that the southern representative withdrew. I can see that you are getting restive, Mr. Irving, and therefore I shall leave that point.
If the documents to which the Attorney-General referred were included in the Report of the Boundary Commission, it would be intensely interesting to see that Report and to realise why the southern representative withdrew. That would be a matter of great historical value, because the present borders of Northern Ireland have been ratified by all three Parliaments and therefore we can examine the matter in an academic way in the hope of getting the historical truth.
As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale knows, and as any other historian knows, it is very difficult to achieve historical truth. History is so often written either by one side or the other. It is often written by the victors. To try to discover the truth about Richard III by studying Tudor historians is notoriously difficult. All kinds of strange views of Irish history have emerged in recent times, particularly concerning "the troubles", which the Attorney-General mentioned. There are fantastic ideas about what took place. On one side people think that there was a gallant war of liberation against a hated tyrant. On the other side, people think of decent, sensible individuals trying to put down a squalid rebellion.
Historians of the future, and historians writing now, should have the facts and the papers. I most strongly support the plea that relevant documents should be published so that we know the facts. We in Ulster have nothing to hide. We should not mind any of these papers being published. We are proud of what has been achieved and we hope that the Lord Chancellor's discretion will not be exercised in such a way as to prevent that great story from being told with truth.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. James Dickens: It goes without saying that I am not an Irishman, although occasionally, to my alarm and incomprehension, people mistake my accent as being that of a person coming from that island. I rise to speak in support of the plea for clarification on

the point about the disclosure of Anglo-Irish documents and to say a few words about the wider aspects of this Bill.
On Second Reading the Attorney-General made some remarks which have been quoted today by my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). For example, he made the intriguing remark that
There is a sensitive area in regard to Irish affairs which remains."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 29.]
The first question which we have to ask is this: would it cause any embarrassment to the Dublin authorities if the British Government treated all the affairs between this country and the Southern Irish Government over a period beyond 30 years on equal terms as affairs with other countries? If the British Government say that that should not be done, one is bound to raise the wider principle of how this should be applied to other sensitive areas—for example, our relations with India, Cyprus and other Commonwealth countries with which there have been troubles in the more recent past.
The Solicitor-General threw out a challenge to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) as to the sort of documents for which we ask for full publication. I do not wish to discuss in detail Irish affairs during the period of the troubles but to make one or two general remarks about the sort of documents which are absolutely essential for the benefit of British and Irish historians in arriving at a proper assessment of what took place during the troubles.
It is unsatisfactory for the Attorney-General to say, as he said on Second Reading,
… documents relating to Irish affairs are not generally restricted. The only ones which are restricted are certain records dealing with what are commonly called the troubles'".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June. 1967; Vol. 749. c. 34.]
Since "the troubles" led to the formation of an independent Ireland, it is nonsense to make available documents concerning Irish history in general either before 1916, before the troubles began in earnest, or after 1923 when they ended.
What are the documents which one could properly ask to be published?


They are, first, treating the matter in chronological order, documents on the relationship between the Westminster Government and the first unofficial republican Government in Dublin, formed as a result of the General Election of December, 1918, which ran Irish affairs very satisfactorily and in peace until the formation, on the one hand, of the Irish Republican Army and, on the other, of the Black and Tan organisation.
There is, secondly, the question to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West drew attention about the high policy decision arrived at in this country which led to the formation of the Black and Tan organisation. That organisation was founded basically to supplement the ineffective rôle being played by the British Army and the Royal Irish Constabulary in keeping law and order. We have to ask ourselves how this organisation was founded and where the money came from to pay 10s. a day to the rank and file and £1 a day to the officers recruited.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail on this issue. He is entitled to ask for these documents to be released but he is going further than the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dickens: I shall try to avoid detail as much as possible, Mr. Irving. Perhaps I am in order in referring to two statements made at the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale referred to the position of Labour and Liberal politicians of the period on this issue and it may be useful to recall what was said by one or two of them. The late Mr. Arthur Henderson, who later became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said:
A state of affairs exists in Ireland which is a disgrace to the human race.
Mr. Asquith, as he then was, was more explicit. He said—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into a debate on Irish history which is out of order on this Question. He must confine himself to the purposes of the Bill and to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dickens: I am trying to do so, Mr. Irving. I shall dispense with that interesting quotation from Mr. Asquith.
I he third area of documents that one could look for are the Cabinet papers which led up to the preparation of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which was, of course, largely stillborn except for the establishment of the Government of Northern Ireland. Again, there are the interesting revelations in Sir Harold Nicholson's official biography of King George V about the King and Ireland. One would want to know something more about the rôle played by the King and General Smuts arising from the speech which the King made at the opening of the first Northern Ireland Parliament in June, 1921 which made a significant contribution leading to a peaceful settlement of the dispute.
One would also want to see the Cabinet papers relating to the crisis which took place in the Cabinet following the King's speech, when Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, set out in a Cabinet paper the conditions under which Ireland could be militarily pacified—100,000 British troops, an economic blockade, block houses—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again going into too much detail. He can only refer in general terms to these documents. He cannot go beyond a passing reference into their contents.

Mr. Dickens: I shall try to do that, Mr. Irving. Sir Henry Wilson's Cabinet paper led to much internal dissention in the Cabinet. One would also look for documents concerning secret negotiations which took place early in 1921 between Mr. De Valera and the British authorities. There is also the question of the documentation leading to the dispute in 1921 on the question of whether or not Ireland should be given Dominion status or made a Republic within the British Empire.
Then again, there is the unique position of Mr. David Lloyd George in this. There is the question of his original plan for a united Ireland and the opposition then created within the Coalition Cabinet by Mr. Bonar Law, which killed the idea.
Finally, there is the question of the Boundary Commission, which is, as has been said, perhaps the most important


single question of all. We know that Dr. Tom Jones, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, told Michael Collins during the Irish negotiations that they could confidently expect that the Commission's recommendation for the final boundary between Ulster and Eire would so whittle down Ulster by taking away Tyrone and Fermanagh that Northern Ireland would not be a viable proposition. It is worth placing on record that Mr. Lloyd George, Sir Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Winston Churchill said just this in speeches in public in December, 1921, and February, 1922.
I want now to refer in more general terms to the provisions of the Bill. It is important to get absolutely clear the question of how far we are prepared to publish Anglo-Irish public records, because Ireland was the first country to achieve independence within the British Empire, and if we are to adopt this attitude of undue sensitivity towards Irish affairs one is bound to ask whether that principle will be extended to later events.
For example, what about the Indian controversy in the 1930s, including the Round Table Conference and the rôle of Mr. Churchill and others at the time in resisting the moderate advances towards Indian State self-government then envisaged? What is to happen about the post-war period and documents concerning our relations with India, Burma and Ceylon in the 1940s and with Kenya and Cyprus, where we had prolonged periods of British military rule, in the 1950s?
It would enhance, in general, Anglo-Irish relations if we had the full publication of Anglo-Irish historical records on exactly the same standards as documents pertaining to the domestic affairs of this country. It is remarkable that, in a period when relations between this country and the Government of the Republic of Ireland are good and improving, the Government should not take this view, and I am bound to repeat the question as to where representations have come from on this question of sensitivity. Have they come from the Opposition? Are they concerned about the rôle of Conservative Cabinet Ministers in the Lloyd George Coalition Government of 1918–22? Was the Stormont Government

concerned about other ramifications in the later periods of "the troubles"? These are questions which require clear answers.
There are other aspects to the Bill which one should mention. There is the question of private papers which have been handed over to the Public Record Office or to other public record keeping bodies. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to tell us whether such private papers will be made available on the same terms as public records, notwithstanding the fact that there may be family aspects in records deposited which it may be thought undesirable to make available in a period of less than 50 years. I feel the 30-year rule should apply to all documents both publicly and privately deposited with the Public Record Office.
Finally, I refer to the question of the double standards being employed between, on the one hand, historians trying to write serious works of historical reference, either beyond the 30-year period or within it, and the position in which certain Cabinet Ministers—most recently, I think, the Earl of Avon—can use documents to substantiate their points of view and try to justify their positions before other historians can get all the facts.
I want my right hon. and learned Friend to make it clear that, if the 30-year rule is applied to all public records, it will be universally applied and that former Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers should not be allowed, within the 30-year period, to use public records, which they have either kept or have not handed over after their period of office, in order to justify their position in memoirs which they publish.
I welcome the Bill. It is a notable advance in the development of British historiography that we should be able to reduce the period from 50 to 30 years in which public records are available. I hope that it may be possible in future to make further reductions in this period—perhaps to the 25 years which most historians were asking for until the Bill was published.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will answer the serious points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale and Belfast, West and myself in relation to Anglo-Irish documents and that he will also say


something about the wider aspects concerning private papers and the use of confidential Cabinet papers by former Cabinet Ministers and Prime Ministers when writing their memoirs.

12 noon.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I want to follow some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham (Mr. Dickens) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in reference to some of the documents referred to by the Attorney-General and also a letter from Mr. Lloyd George referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, West and the hon. Member for Lewisham. That letter and the speeches referred to by Mr. Winston Churchill and others were in fact outdated by events which followed, and I cannot see how publication of them would do anyone any harm at this stage, because they are wholly irrelevant. They were outdated because the Boundary Commission broke down in 1925. My hon. Friend and myself earlier gave an account of why we think it broke down—simply because the representative from the Republic of Ireland did not wish to accept the findings which were likely to flow as leaked to the Morning Post.

Mr. Dickens: The hon. Member is confusing two separate questions. First, the speeches made by Mr. Winston Churchill and others are on public record. Secondly, I am not sure that Mr. Lloyd George wrote any letter about the Boundary Commission and as to what its likely findings would be. What we do know, and what Mr. A. J. P. Taylor records in a footnote in Vol. 15 of the Oxford History of England, is that some message passed between Mr. Tom Jones, the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, and Mr. Michael Collins about the likelihood of the Boundary Commission's findings. It is on this that we want evidence.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It may well be that it is only a letter that has not been published. When I spoke about letters and speeches I was being comprehensive. I do not want to deny the hon. Member anything.
This letter and any other document referring to this question are outdated by the agreement of 1925 which recognised the separation of the six counties from the rest of Ireland "in a spirit of

neighbourly comradeship." This agreement was signed by the Free State Government and is interesting because it refutes the notion that the Southern Irish have always been totally opposed to Ulster's very existence. I do not want to pursue that.

The Deputy Chairman: I am anxious to ensure to the hon. Member the same latitude as was given to the hon. Member who raised the matter, but I think the hon. Member is going into too much detail.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not wish to pursue it any further. It was simply worth getting it on the record.
I have some sympathy with the object of the hon. Member's protestations this morning. As was said, I cannot think that there is anything anyone would wish to hide in the matter. There are those who say that there are sensitive areas, and there may well be some of which I know nothing. There are those who say publication might be inflammatory. One can make these matters inflammatory. There may be certain documents upon which people could dilate and cause an inflammatory situation, but inflammatory situations already exist and people cause them, like the hon. Member for Belfast, West who made a speech in Trafalgar Square the other day, which was certainly an incitement to violence if ever there was one.

Mr. Fitt: Do you not think that is played out?

The Deputy Chairman: One thing which is certainly not in the Bill is a reference to Trafalgar Square.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I just wanted the hon. Member's Left-wing friends to study and evaluate the hon. Member's speech. I cannot see any objection to publication of any of the documents so far mentioned. Whether there are others I do not know. That is my view and I hope that it is of some help to the hon. Member for Belfast, West to know that as far as Unionist Members on this side are concerned there is no attempt to hide anything.

Sir John Hobson: I do not intend to deprive the Irish wolfhounds, but friends of the Solicitor-General, from the pleasure they


will have in listening to his answer, which they are most anxious to receive, on the problems which have been discussed this morning.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will have noted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) about nationalised industries. They are all below the thirty-year period, but under Clause 1 of the Bill, if passed as it stands, there will be liberty for the Lord Chancellor to reduce the thirty years. It may be that he would consider the exercise of a discretion, because I cannot believe that documents on nationalised industries are of very high security or sensitivity. There is the additional point that there is only one nationalised industry whose records are to be public. They should all be in or out, and I would hope they would all be in.
We started with, I was about to say, pedestrian flights of fancy, but that would only be accurate so far as nomenclature goes. The flights of fancy indulged in by the Opposition in representations to the Government on the question of the Irish papers could never be called pedestrian, because it touched neither ground nor reality at any point. I have no knowledge and I have never heard, as I am sure I would have done, of any such representations being made in the course of the discussions between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister on the reduction of the period from 50 years to 30 years, which is the purpose of this Bill. So far as I know, no representations concerning Irish affairs in the course of those negotiations has been or was made. I have seen most of the correspondence. I was not present at every discussion, but I would have been aware if anything had been said in the course of the discussions.
The trouble is that we are all speaking in the dark. There has been a veiled reference to groups of documents by the Attorney-General and we do not know what they are. I would like to express in advance my sympathy to the Solicitor-General for the awkward situation in which anyone in his position finds himself. There may or may not be good reasons for saying that certain documents should be covered by a special category of protection because the only way one

can justify it is by disclosing documents which must not be disclosed. Those who have ever been Law Officers and considered the question of Crown Privilege and matters of that sort know how unfair it often may seem that, without showing the strength of one's hand, one has to justify what seems on the whole to be unjustifiable. I have no idea what is contained in the documents referred to by the Attorney-General. I understand he referred only to the documents affecting the troubles. I do not interpret that as having anything to do with Ulster. I had always thought that the troubles were concerned with that part of Ireland which is now Eire, but I may be wholly mistaken. None of us knows, and it may well be that the Attorney-General is in the unhappy position of not being able to tell us, what is considered by his colleagues and the present Lord Chancellor to require special protection.
The Bill contains a provision that the Lord Chancellor is to exercise a discretion in these matters. I think that is a wise and sensible provision. I am content to leave the decision on these and other documents to the present or any future Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is in a position to exercise an independent judgment on the difficult matter that history should be written and that the truth should be revealed as soon as possible and the damage which we must all recognise can be caused if certain documents are disclosed at times when those who were alive and present when events took place are still alive. Therefore, I approve the provision that this difficult judgment should be left to this and any future Lord Chancellor.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): Before I come to the main theme of the debate, I will deal briefly with two of the specific points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) both referred to the singular position of the Coal Board and pointed out that, under the Act of 1958, the records of the Coal Board are documents which come into the possession of the Public Record Office, and they asked why there should be this differential between the Coal Board and the Boards of other Nationalised industries.
The explanation is that the inclusion of Coal Board records was covered by the original legislation under which the Board was set up. The position has been maintained because the Coal Board itself has expressed a wish that its records should be public records and subject to the same rules about disclosure as other public records. The other Boards have expressed the contrary wish. They have no desire that their records should come into the possession of the Record Office and, as a result, they are not covered by the 1958 legislation.

Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that to be a desirable position? If these are public industries, their records should be kept by the Public Record Office and preserved for the benefit of the public, whatever they themselves may think.

The Solicitor-General: Not necessarily. There may be many ways in which those records are made available. An Electricity Board, for example, may be quite willing for all its records to be made available to the public within quite a short space of time, rather than being made subject to the 30-year rule. It does not follow that there is any degree of concealment if the Board of a public industry says that it does not want its records dealt with in this way.
The other point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), who asked about the position of private papers given into the custody of the Public Record Office. I have taken advice about that. I am informed that, when an offer of this sort is made, the papers are accepted only if they have some connection with public affairs and providing that the donors agree to their disclosure in the same way as any other documents in the custody of the Public Record Office.
I come now to the principal theme of the debate, which was about Irish documents. We have had many excursions back into history. We were reminded of old, unhappy, far-off things and battles long ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) even recalled what Winston Churchill in 1922 described as the "forbidding steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone". All these matters were recalled to us. However, there has been a certain degree of misunderstanding arising out of the Second Reading de-

bate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that he was not easily flabbergasted. Casting my mind back, that may be so, but he becomes very readily indignant. He can become indignant at the drop of a hat about almost anything. On this occasion, I agree with him that, when one considers the history of Ireland over the years and, indeed, over the centuries, and when in particular one considers the record of the party opposite in Irish affairs, there is a great deal about which to be indignant.
Coming to the specific question of Irish documents, during the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend asked why there should be this special provision about Irish affairs, and he raised the same question today. However, that is really a misconception. Neither in the 1958 Act nor in this Bill is there special provision about Irish affairs or Irish records. Under Section 5(1) of the 1958 Act, the Lord Chancellor may prescribe a longer or shorter period than 50 years, and he will now have power to lengthen or abridge the 30-year period in respect of any document or class of document.
We are concerned here not with a power to abridge the period, which is not infrequently exercised but to which no one has referred, but with the power to lengthen the period, and that power is invoked in certain classes of case. In his Second Reading speech, my right hon. and learned Friend gave examples of the sort of case in which that discretion is exercised. Two of them have a particular bearing on the subject matter of this debate.
12.15 p.m.
The first example is where documents have been obtained originally either in strict confidence or under the seal of absolute secrecy and where their publication might cause embarrassment or even danger to individuals. That could arise in the case of Ireland, and I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West that similar considerations might arise in relation to other countries in Asia and Africa which have obtained their independence in recent years.
Those are documents which affect individuals. Then I come to court proceedings, particularly proceedings before courts martial, which again were cited


as an example by my right hon. and learned Friend. It must have been obvious to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that, when dealing with such proceedings, the instructions given to prosecuting counsel in civil proceedings and to the prosecuting officer before a court martial might cause considerable embarrassment to the individual concerned if he is still alive, or to his family if he is not, and it is very difficult to imagine what useful purpose could be served by publication in such cases. So far as public records are concerned, this sort of consideration applies to the proceedings of courts martial, as to other courts, wherever such proceedings may have been held, but it must be obvious that it has particular application to Ireland because, unhappily, Ireland was under martial law for a period of years.
I want to make it clear that there are certain categories of documents in respect of which the power to lengthen the period is exercised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. It has followed from the circumstances of history that there are various Irish documents which fall into those categories, but again I want to make it clear that there is no different standard. The same standards are applied, whether we are dealing with Irish documents or with any others—

Mr. Michael Foot: Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that the reference to certain papers relating to Irish affairs is superfluous, since it is covered by other categories?

The Solicitor-General: What my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was doing was illustrating the way in which the discretion applies. There is no separate standard which is applied to Irish documents, and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor considers them in the same way as he would consider any other class of document.

Mr. Dickens: If that is so, why were Irish affairs specifically mentioned as the third of four categories by the Attorney-General in his Second Reading speech on 26th June, at col. 28?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend may take it that I am tolerably familiar with the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend. If he studies it

carefully, he will see that it illustrates what I am saying. My right hon. and learned Friend was making it clear that discretion is exercised in relation to particular documents or categories of documents, and that some Irish documents fall into those categories. However, Irish affairs do not fall into a special category of their own, although, because of the circumstances of Irish history, there must be particular documents which are caught by the sort of prohibition which I have tried to describe.
I come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I listened to him with great interest and sympathy, as I am sure the whole Committee did. I hope that I am not inhibited from answering any of his questions. I gather that there were certain points which he felt unable to mention in this debate, and I shall be very glad to discuss them with him at any time, and to make any representations that he would wish to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I cannot give any undertaking on the disclosure of a particular document, but I should be very willing to co-operate with my hon. Friend in that way.
He will not expect me to give a precise answer on all the documents he mentioned: but perhaps I might refer to one or two. He asked whether I thought we could make available the Cabinet Minutes of 1912 and 1916. That is not possible, for the simple reason that in those days there were no Cabinet Minutes. Indeed, there was no Cabinet Secretariat as we understand it until Mr. Lloyd George formed his Coalition Government at a very fortunate moment for this country in December 1916. Therefore, one would look in vain for any Cabinet Minutes before that date.
But there would be Cabinet Minutes available after that. Some have recently become available for the first time under the 50-year rule, and some of them have been a matter of public comment and controversy. When the period is shortened to 30 years, I expect that Cabinet Minutes would normally be available. I cannot say that there is no case in which there might not be an item which could not be disclosed, but certainly I would expect them to be available.
My hon. Friend was supported by the hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and, I think, by the hon. Member


for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), and I was delighted to see this degree of unanimity. They all had in mind events from 1920 onwards, and particularly the Report of the Boundary Commission. They said that it had never been disclosed and indicated that it would still be a matter of great public interest, both in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland.
I did not have the opportunity of considering any specific documents before coming to the debate, because I did not know which would be mentioned. I can see no conceivable reason why the award of the Boundary Commission should not be published, together with nearly all the documents connection with it. I therefore hope that it will be possible to give satisfaction to hon. Members on both sides.
I think that I have dealt with the major points raised in the debate. There is no intention to put Irish documents into a particular category by themselves. It is intended that there should be general disclosure of documents under the new 30-year rule and that only in certain very exceptional cases of the kind I have described will the Lord Chancellor exercise his power to lengthen the period and withhold those documents from publication. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will accept the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

RIVER THAMES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

12.24 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am fortunate to have a chance to raise a subject seldom touched on in the House, but one that exists only 100 yards from where we sit—Old Father Thames. If there had been no River Thames the capital of England would still be at Winchester, because it is the river that has made this city one of the greatest commercial cities of the world, the country's largest port, and the most accessible city to Europe and the oceans of the world.
I must declare an interest in the matter of the River Thames because I am honoured at present by being President of the River Thames Society, a voluntary body that takes a great interest in the Thames. The River Thames, this silver thread that runs through England from the Cotswolds to the North Sea for 210 miles, this river with 37 tributaries, is perhaps the country's greatest single tourist attraction. It attracts as tourists in its launches and steamers 2½ million passengers a year, tens of thousands of whom are foreigners. We can easily check that by simply going for a moment to Westminster Pier, where we can hear nearly every language under the sun.
All the launches, steamers and motor boats that carry these passengers earn us a great deal of foreign currency. I hold in my hand copies of two cheques paid to a firm in my constituency, Thames Launches Limited. One is from a travel agency in Chicago, Travel Headquarters Incorporated, for no less than 11,677 dollars and another from a Swiss company, paid through the Union de Banques Suisses, Zurich, for £1,160. Therefore, one can see that this is profitable business for this country.
But although the Thames is used by tourists it is grossly under-used nowadays. A century ago, before the roads were developed and before the internal combustion engine, it is estimated that 20 million people a year used the Thames in sailing vessels, rowing boats, ferries, barges and those lovely old Thames sailing barges that some of us were


lucky enough to see. So the Thames is really an under-used highway that could relieve other highways. The time has come when we should revitalise our valuable river.
There has been a running down of the old fleet of tourist launches and steamers, the ones that ply in London and up to Kew, Hampton Court and Oxford, the boats specially designed for the Thames. I am told that the newest was built 40 years ago, and that one was built in 1886. Let us compare them with the Bateaux Mouches on the Seine which are a tremendous tourist attraction in Paris. Nearly every visitor goes on one of them. Let us compare them too with the boats with transparent plastic cabin roofs at Amsterdam, Stockholm, and all over Europe.
Piers on the Thames are getting out of date. If the Minister walks down to Westminster Pier he will see that it has hardly changed this century. There used to be innumerable embarking places up and down the Thames, but many have been closed by embankments or cut off by road traffic. Those which remain at Charing Cross, Westminster and Putney should be modernised.
We should consider the possibility of the noiseless type of hovercraft, in which I think we are becoming supreme. I understand that Red Funnel Steamers at Southampton and Cowes will operate what is called a sidewall hovercraft driven by a propellor in the water. Each such hovercraft, called the "Hover-marine", costs about £65,000 and can carry 60 people. I understand that they will operate on the Solent next summer. That is the sort of hovercraft which would be suitable on the Thames because it is more ship and less aircraft than the SRN series in the Solent.
If one looks at the old pictures of the Thames in the eighteenth century, one sees that it was used for every type of entertainment, pageantry, and all manner of similar activities. At the moment we have son et lumière, which provides for a limited audience. Last September we had a splendid and most enjoyable pageant put on by the Evening News. What about more pageants on the Thames at Bank Holiday periods with a show lasting several days? We understand that we need a new exhibition hall in

London. What about a floating exhibition hall off the South Bank? Why not a floating swimming pool off Cleopatra's Needle? I am sure that Cleopatra would not object. Both those areas, which are free of river traffic could take a floating exhibition hall and a floating swimming pool.
The River Thames Advisory Committee of the London Tourist Board, of which the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) is a member—and she has asked me to say that she is sorry that she could not be here today—has taken an active part in giving London River a new look in the last two years, and several bridges have been attractively repainted. But there is an enormous field of endeavour still open to the Committee and similar committees. There is a great need for a yacht marina for visiting foreign yachtsmen. I have had letters about that from foreigners. I am aware of the proposed marina in the Erith development. But why not put some mooring pontoons off Battersea Park, which might be suitable for a marina for visiting yachtsmen?
A cultural suggestion has been made to me that it would be nice to have a Saturday or Sunday open-air art centre for artists to display and sell their pictures along the river—perhaps on the embankment at Twickenham.
In all these ideas for revivifying the life of the river, I have concentrated on the lower river below Teddington Lock. But what about those beautiful stretches up to Windsor, Maidenhead, Marlow, Oxford and beyond? I see the Minister nodding his head. I am sure that he knows them well. Here is the real habitat of the canoeist, puntsman, oarsman, dinghy sailor, motor boatman and angler, all enjoying the wide-open, tree-lined, verdant reaches of the Thames.
The River Thames Society has, since it was formed. kept a watchful eye on all planning applications for factories, offices, apartment blocks and houses on the banks of the river, and it has made suggestions in innumerable cases and has appeared, through its representatives, at about a dozen public inquiries a year, not in an attempt just "to preserve", but in a constructive sense, realising that the river is a growing, organic thing and that people must live and work alongside it as well as enjoy it. Those of us who


are in the Society feel that the upper reaches of the Thames should be considered as a comprehensive area of development in relation to housing needs and recreation facilities for the communities in the areas adjoining the river.
The Society has established some local planning forum to discuss these matters, but what is required is a co-ordinating planning authority with the support of the local authorities in Berkshire, Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. For instance, what about a Thames footpath going from county to county and from side to side of the river? That needs a river planning authority. Possibly it is too late to establish a national park alongside the Thames, but in the Countryside Bill for England—I understand that there is a possibility of a similar Bill for England to the one now going through for Scotland—perhaps the upper reaches of the Thames could be established as a country park or an area of outstanding natural beauty.
I have thrown out a number of ideas for both the lower and upper reaches of the river. Perhaps the best way to foster these would be to establish a River Thames Amenity and Planning Authority which would have to have an architect with a wide vision for the whole river and it would have to be divided into two sections: one section covering the tourist and commercial needs of the lower river, and another section for the recreational and planning needs of the upper river above Teddington Lock, the area covered by the Thames Conservancy.
I have not time to cover such problems of the river as driftwood and vandalism. We appreciate the efforts of the Port of London Authority in clearing driftwood, but I note from its accounts that, while it spends about 90 per cent. of the revenue obtained from docks and warehouses on that part of the river, it seems to spend only 76 per cent. of the revenue received from pier tolls, boats, and so on, on the upper part of the river which it controls above the docks. I hope that it will spend a bigger proportion of its revenue on this part of the river.
The Thames Division of the Metropolitan Police patrolling the waters as far as Staines has waged a successful fight

against vandalism. I hope that that will be extended when the police authorities of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire become united. They could form a Thames constabulary. I hope that my small Bill, the Vessels Protection Bill, will get through all its stages and will assist the police against those who go joy riding in other people's boats.
We must not forget that the Thames supplies the greater part of London's drinking water, and from the vast reservoirs of Laleham and Staines water is pumped by a 9 ft. underground pipe about 19 miles long right under London from Hampton to the Lee Valley to serve the east side of London when required. How lucky we are in this country to have a steady and regular rainfall of 25 to 30 inches a year. Our rainfall is much maligned, but if we did not have it we should become a desert like the Middle East and, no doubt, we would all have to emigrate to Canada.
Finally, I deal with an idea which, in my view, would be the greatest single factor in beautifying our river and at one sweep would give us an extra 30 miles of deep water frontage, enabling boats and vessels to travel up and down the river at any time, irrespective of the tide. It is not generally realised that the shimmering reaches above Teddington Lock are maintained only by a series of locks—to mention a few, those at Marlow, Maidenhead, Windsor and Teddington. If these locks did not exist, the river would become a muddy, non-navigable, low-lying stream. There have always been some kind of locks—they used to be called flash locks—to help navigation for several hundred years. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the state of the river at low tide at places like Richmond. If the half locks at Richmond are out of use for repairs, one sees a very sorry sight—a muddy stream. That is the difference which the locks make between a low-lying stream and a river with plenty of water in it.
Suppose that we had a new lock at Woolwich, making our London river here non-tidal at constant high water, gently flowing, giving us 30 miles more of deep water frontage all the time. How delightful that would be. In addition, it would keep out the sewage which flows


up from Barking and Crossness. This series of locks, or barrage, at Woolwich would give the Port of London Authority constant high water for its West India and Surrey Commercial Docks.
I know that we are all concerned about possible flooding in London. There is always the possibility of this at times of equinoctial gales. I am not the least of those who are concerned, but if we are thinking of spending £30 million at Long Reach on a mechanical flood barrier which may be used only once every few years, would it not be better to spend that money on a permanent barrage, which would be about the same cost, at Woolwich which would not only keep out the flooding but give us all the other permanent advantages as well?
Thirty organisations called together the other day by the River Thames Society, passed a resolution which ended:
The Conference calls on H.M. Government immediately to re-open the question of building a Thames Barrage and to hold further studies and enquiry into the planning implications of such a scheme for Greater London together with a study of present day costs and advantages, having regard particularly to the tendency in recent years for large port authorities to be opened and required further down river towards the Estuary.
Therefore, a barrage at Woolwich would not be the disadvantage that it might have been to the port 30 years ago.
This scheme has long been advocated by Sir Alan Herbert, Professor Bunge, Mr. Bernard Clarke and others. It seems a far-off dream, but I believe that it is easily within the bounds of engineering and cost possibilities nowadays. I know that the Port of London Authority has its reservations, but it would have certain advantages. I believe that the time has arrived for an independent inquiry into the whole of this barrage scheme.
I was interested the other day to see that the Lightermen's Union has come out in favour of such a scheme, which would help the lighterage trade up and down the river above the docks.
As the first ever Inter-Nation Conference on Waterways is to be held in London next year, that would be an admirable time for the Government to be able to say that they are actively contemplating such an imaginative scheme

for our chief river. It would put our river on a level with the Seine and the Rhine, or the Charles River at Boston and other great rivers of the world where the tide is held back. The country which has such a river as the Seine has the advantage of a controlled and gently flowing river, in which state we would, I suggest, like to see the Thames at Westminster at its best at all times.

12.42 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I wish to intervene briefly since the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has referred to my constituency and we have a great interest in the development of the River Thames. The hon. Member has done a great service to Thames-side communities in bringing this matter before the House this morning. As the hon. Member has said, great and wonderful opportunities are available to the country to increase its dollar earnings by the development of the whole of the Thames-side areas for tourist attractions.
The hon. Member suggested that that would be helped if a Thames flood barrier or lock could be installed in the vicinity of Woolwich. I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that if this were done, it would have a detrimental effect on the residents of my constituency of Erith and Crayford, who have been subjected to flooding over a considerable number of years. In addition, the Greater London Council is embarking on a bold and imaginative scheme of development for housing and recreation at Thames-mead, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). That development, as the hon. Member for Twickenham has said, will have a yacht marina, which will go a long way to meeting the needs which he has outlined.
To put the barrier up river from that would mean, however, that my constituency—and, indeed, yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker—would still be subject to the dangers of flooding. With the 60,000 increase in population which will take place at Thamesmead, I certainly hope that the Minister will not encourage the placing of a barrier further up river. If there is to be a barrier to increase the amenities of the River Thames, the overriding consideration must be that of the protection


of the maximum number of Thames-side dwellers from the dangers of flooding. That can be done only if a barrier of some sort is put further down river to protect the maximum number of people, particularly those of my constituency.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I apologise to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) for missing five minutes of his speech but I listened to the rest of it with great interest. I know of the hon. Member's interest in this matter exending over many years. The House will, I think, know also of my interest.
I fully accept practically every word the hon. Member has said, except that I would give greater emphasis to the need to realise that the commercial viability of the River Thames is of paramount importance and all the rest follows from that. The attractiveness for overseas visitors is that it is a commercial River Thames. As hon. Members know, when sitting on the Terrace one sees ships of all kinds, from all nations, sailing by outside. It is not merely looking at pleasure craft which makes the River Thames attractive.
It is in that respect that I take every opportunity to raise the question of the use of the River Thames, which in the last 10 years, in terms of the amount of tonnage carried on the river and the work of the lighterage industry, has shown a drastic decline. The extent to which traffic now finds its way on to the road—which is one of the reasons why I was late in arriving here this morning—emphasises that we must attract traffic back on to the river where it properly belongs. The River Thames is a great highway which is greatly under-used.
I am very much interested in your proposal for a committee of inquiry to deal with the two aspects which you have put forward. I would like to declare my interest in saying that the lower reaches of the Thames also have their own kind of beauty, as well as the upper reaches to which you have referred.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is omitting to refer to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in the traditional way.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I beg pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was, of course, referring to the hon. Member for Twickenham.
I have commissioned some town planners to examine aspects of the waterfront in my constituency with a view to improving the amenities and the usefulness of the River Thames. The hon. Member for Twickenham can always rely on my support in developing the River Thames as an attraction both for tourists and for trade.

12.47 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The House is clearly unanimous in congratulating the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on raising this subject this morning. The hon. Member is right to stress the enormous importance of the River Thames to the country. It is important for transport of all kinds, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) has said. Its banks are packed with history and, therefore, it is a wonderful place from which to do sightseeing. It has tremendous possibilities for sport. It has an obvious use as a water supply and it has tremendous advantages from the sheer pleasure of being on it and doing nothing at all.
The River Thames is important from a tourist point of view, and not only for dollars. Tourists come from all over the world and their currencies are very acceptable in terms of our balance of payments. It is not, however, only as an attraction for tourists from abroad, welcome though they are, that I look upon the Thames. It is, or could be, a tremendous attraction to the people of this country. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Twickenham did not concentrate entirely on the London area of the Thames. The Thames stretches all the way up to Seven Springs and, as the hon. Member has said, there are stretches of almost unbelievable beauty.
In stressing the under-use of the river and the imperfections of our facilities, we ought to be careful not to suggest that, even though we are not making full use of the river, even though the facilities on the riverside or on the river are not as good as they should be, it is not possible to have a great deal of pleasure from using the river.
I have had one holiday away from home in the last four years and it was on the River Thames, a holiday which I enjoyed enormously. I have from time to time gone down by river either to the Tower of London or to Greenwich and have found a great deal of pleasure in doing so. I would not like to put anybody off from using the river simply because all the facilities are not as perfect as we should like them to be.
It is, unhappily, true that the boats are getting pretty well out of date. Their catering facilities either do not exist or are inadequate. I have found their seats remarkably hard. I am surprised that the running commentaries, some of which are admirable, are almost invariably in English. I happened to take a trip along the canals of Amsterdam the other day. There the commentary was bilingual and it was done by a university student who was paid by the tips we gave him. The commentary was very effective. I do not understand why we do not realise that not everybody in the world speaks English, and it would be a good plan to have commentaries in French, or perhaps in German, as well as in English.
The trouble about the boats on the Thames at present is the old one of finance. I do not know which comes first. If we put on better boats, would that attract more visitors, or do we have to attract more visitors on to the boats first to make it possible for the owners to buy new boats?
Much the same consideration applies to the other amenities on the banks—public houses, restaurants and so on. Before we can get really good public houses, do we have to try to stimulate people on to the river, or should we stimulate people on to the river by having good public houses and restaurants on the bank-side?
There is, as I well know, an acute shortage of moorings. Some of the piers are getting pretty ropy. It is unhappily a fact that some of the piers and some of the steps are beginning to get neglected, because people do not use them. This may be a failure of public relations. It may be a failure of publicity in stimulating people to use the river.
The question of a through-path is a difficult one. It was examined some time ago by the Parks Commission, or whatever it is called. It was rejected on

grounds of cost. Leaving that aspect out of account, so far as I know, on the whole the footpaths, especially those in the upper reaches, are reasonably well maintained. They are the responsibility of the riparian authorities where they are public, and not all of them are public.
I am horrified to hear from the hon. Member for Twickenham that vandalism is a serious problem. I have not come across it. When the amalgamations of the police forces to which the hon. Gentleman referred take place, it may well be possible to have more patrolling.
This is a rather bleak approach. I do not mean it to be, because I feel as strongly as other hon. Members do about the beauty of the river and its enormous potential. value. However, there are difficulties in, the way of getting things done. The fact that there are difficulties does not mean that nothing is being done or that thought is not being given to the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman has paraded before us. For example, he mentioned the possibility of a floating exhibition centre and a floating swimming pool somewhere on the South Bank. This has been thought about a great deal. The London Tourist Board has fairly recently produced a pretty detailed plan for doing just that.
Then there is the question of the barrage or barrier, whichever it may be, which exercised the hon. Member for Twickenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). I well understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford about the placing of either a barrage or a barrier. This idea has been very carefully considered by Departments, by a series of experts, and by consulting engineers. We are now actively looking at the fairly detailed proposals that have come to us. I understand that there is a serious possibility of a recommendation in principle being arrived at during the latter part of this year. This would not be a decision. It would be a means of putting the pros and cons before the House and the country and, I hope, of providing a full opportunity for detailed discussion. Until possible recommendations are made public, I do not think that there is the necessity for an independent inquiry of the type suggested by the hon. Member for Twickenham.
Another of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, which at first sight seems to me to be particularly attractive, was for a single authority to consider the whole question of the river—its use as a form of transport, its amenities, its potentialities, the various pleasures it provides. At present there are almost literally dozens of authorities with some executive say or which, unofficially in an advisory capacity, are concerned with the river. Such a diversification of interested parties and executive bodies dealing with the river can sometimes lead to inaction. There is the Port of London Authority, the G.L.C., the boroughs, the Thames Conservancy, the South-East Regional Economic Planning Council, and so on, right the way along to the admirable River Thames Society, of which the hon. Member for Twickenham is President.
There may well be a case, because of the enormous importance of the river, for treating its future development as a project with one body to do the planning, subject to the authority of Parliament. I say that this suggestion strikes me as attractive. I could not make any promise on behalf of the Government, beyond saying that I will put this matter to my hon. Friends who are most immediately

concerned, and seriously discuss with them the possibility of having such an authority, so as to make sure that we make the fullest possible use of this tremendous national asset.
Those are the points I want to make, bar one. We are talking at the moment about the River Thames. This is not our only river. We have some lovely rivers. We have some extremely good canals. We have a plentiful supply of water all over the country. Generally speaking, we do not make anything like the best use of it. The rivers abroad which the hon. Gentleman mentioned always seem more fully used and more pleasant to look at than our own.
I hope that both the hon. Member for Twickenham and other hon. Members who are interested in this subject will do all they can by publicity, by putting the heat on Government Departments, and so on, to ensure that in the future, unlike in the past, we make use of our rivers in a much fuller way, because they are such an enormous asset to every one in the country.

The debate having concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Operating Theatres (Procedure)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Minister of Health what plans he has made to ensure more stringent observation of the regulations in National Health Service hospitals to avoid mistakes in the operating theatre.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) on 19th June.—[Vol. 748, c. 1121–2.]

Mrs. Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is a matter of great concern not only in the Birmingham area but all over the country? Mistakes have been occurring. Will he ensure that the greatest possible care is taken at all times about this matter?

Mr. Robinson: I certainly do not disagree with the hon. Lady, but I think that we ought to get this into perspective, because the number of claims reported to my Department for wrong operations averaged about seven a year over the last five years, and for other surgical mistakes about 18 a year. That should be looked at against the background of about 2 million operations carried out every year in National Health Service hospitals.

Staff Establishments

Mrs. Knight: asked the Minister of Health if he will give an assurance that no hardship to patients will result from the recent cuts in staff establishments at general hospitals.

Mr. K. Robinson: Hospital authorities determine their own staffing needs and I do not know what cuts the hon. Member has in mind.

Mrs. Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a matter for concern that staff cuts have been made at this time in general hospitals? If he

does not know, I will gladly give him the details, but would he agree that to carry out such cuts at this time must result in a lowering of standards?

Mr. Robinson: I would not necessarily accept the last part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, but I will look into any particular instance which she has in mind. I can tell the hon. Lady that the latest available figures show that the total number of nursing and midwifery staff of all grades employed in our hospitals continues to rise.

Poliomyelitis Patients (Orpington Area)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to provide facilities for short-stay in-patient treatment of poliomyelitis patients living in the Orpington area following closure of the respiratory unit at Western Hospital, Fulham.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): No decision has been taken to close this unit. If it is closed alternative facilities will be provided.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman say what alternative facilities he has in mind for patients in the Orpington area? Is he aware that some of my constituents have been told that they will have to have trachcainlets fitted which will tie them to one room, and greatly increase the difficulties of families looking after these severely disabled patients?

Mr. Snow: I am aware of the case which has been exercising the hon. Gentleman's mind. As to the medical aspect which he has mentioned, there are two hospitals, Brook General and Hither Green, which are nearer to Orpington than the Western Hospital at Fulham.

Shrewsbury Patient (Hernia Operation)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a man aged 60 years from Shrewsbury, whose name has been given to him, and who is suffering from a serious hernia has been informed by his doctor that he will not be operated on for up to two years; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Snow: I am aware that non-urgent cases may have to wait for admission. Urgent cases are admitted at once.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a man of this age who has this affliction comes within the realms of urgency? Will he say when he expects that this gentleman will be able to have this surgical treatment?

Mr. Snow: If this case is to be designated urgent we require another reference from the general practitioner to the consultant. If this is done and urgency is included in the submission, naturally steps will be taken very quickly.

New District General Hospital, Redditch

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Health if he will give a starting and completion date for the new district general hospital in Redditch.

Mr. Snow: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 10th April.—[Vol. 744, c. 127.]

Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that already there is a grave shortage of hospital beds in Redditch, particularly for maternity cases, and as this new town is developed there is great anxiety in many people's minds about when they will get this new hospital? When will we get a statement about this?

Mr. Snow: It is important to understand that my Department has to retain some flexibility about actual starts of hospitals, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I should perhaps say that as a short-term measure the regional hospital board has plans to improve Smallwood Hospital and provide 10 additional beds. Work will be started once the board obtains an assurance from the Redditch Development Corporation that its plans for a new town centre will leave Smallwood Hospital unaffected for at least 10 years.

Drug Addicts

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Health what response has he received to his memorandum to regional hospital boards requesting them to introduce immediately out-patient services for drug

addicts and to expand in-patient services in psychiatric departments.

Mr. K. Robinson: In-patient services for heroin addicts are available in all, and out-patient services in 12 regional hospital board areas; the need for expansion of services is being kept under review.

Mrs. Short: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to have diagnostic treatment as well as in-patient and out-patient facilities? Would he not further agree that the success of the legislation now going through the House depends on treatment centres being available all over the country? Will he give this matter his most urgent attention?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. All out-patient clinics are linked with hospitals which provide in-patient facilities for heroin addicts.

Mr. Braine: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in answer to a similar Question last week about London hospitals he denied that any hospital had told him that the system which he proposed was unworkable? Can he now confirm or deny that certain London teaching hospitals have told him that his scheme for out-patient facilities is unlikely to work in its present form, and will be inadequate to deal with the expected number of addicts?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. No such advice in those terms has reached me. Certainly some doctors in some London teaching hospitals have doubts about whether the scheme will succeed. None of us can be confident, as I have made abundantly clear on many occasions, but the suggestion that London teaching hospitals regard the scheme as unworkable is not confirmed by my information.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Health at which hospitals in England and Wales out patient and inpatient treatment is now being provided for drug addicts.

Mr. K. Robinson: Most mental illness hospitals and psychiatric units of general hospitals have treatment facilities for addiction to one or more types of drug.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that that may be correct in


theory, but it does not work out in practice? Hospitals are unwilling to take addicts. Will he see that proper centres are set up in every regional hospital board area in the country, and that round-the-clock facilities are available, because these are essential?

Mr. Robinson: The figures which I have do not altogether bear out what my hon. Friend said, because in 1966 inpatient treatment for about 360 heroin addicts was given at 78 hospitals and units in England and Wales, of which 45 were in the area covered by the Metropolitan regions.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the Bill which is passing through the House the treatment of addicts by general practitioners is to cease? Is he satisfied that the facilities which now exist, and which he is hoping to set up, will be able to deal with those addicts who will no longer be able to go to a general practitioner and who will need treatment? Is he aware that if he does not fill this gap—[Interruption.]—this is a very important social question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even important questions should be brief.

Mr. Robinson: I am so satisfied. I have already made it clear that we shall not bring in the regulations prohibiting prescribing by general practitioners for addicts until we are satisfied that the hospital facilities are adequate.

Hospital Management Committees (South-East Region)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Health, what recent representations he has received from the South-East Regional Hospital Board regarding the difficulties of hospital management committees within the region.

Mr. K. Robinson: My Department has recently discussed its revenue allocation with the regional board and as a result I have made the board a small additional allocation for the current year.

Mr. Hunt: May I express my gratitude to the Minister for that small concession? Is he aware, however, that there is much concern in Bromley and elsewhere at the niggardly approach of his Department towards estimates for the current year?

Mr. Robinson: I do not think that my approach can legitimately be described as niggardly. I have looked into this matter since the hon. Member put down the Question and I am satisfied that the Bromley Group gets its fair share of the resources available.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Health why he has refused to furnish the hon. Member for Bromley with details of the estimates submitted for the current year by the hospital management committees within the area covered by the South-East Regional Hospital Board.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 5th June.—[Vol. 747, c. 121.]

Mr. Hunt: What is the Minister trying to hide in this matter? Surely, if we are to assess the severity of the cuts imposed in the current year we must know the original estimates as well as the final allocation. Is not a Member of Parliament entitled to have such information, whatever embarrassment it may cause the Minister of Health?

Mr. Robinson: It is not a question of embarrassment. The hon. Member has almost answered his own supplementary question. These are not current but forward estimates, which are made a year before the beginning of the financial year to which they relate, and represent the desires of hospital management committees, which do not necessarily each apply the same standards. They represent their desires for development and improvement in hospital services in their areas, and the estimate of one hospital management committee cannot, therefore, be meaningfully compared with the estimate of another, or with the eventual allocation. We regard the forward estimates of a hospital management committee as working documents between the management committee and the board.

South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board, together with the dates at which their present terms of appointment expire.

Mr. K. Robinson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When there is next a vacancy on this board, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the local authorities in south-west London, so as to secure by that appointment better representation of local opinion?

Mr. Robinson: Local authorities are among the bodies consulted every year when vacancies occur in the normal way. The right hon. Gentleman should know that five members of the regional hospital board live within a few miles of St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon.

Following is the information:


Members
Appointment expires


Viscount Addison of Stallingborough (Chairman)
31.3.1970


F.E. Sowden Esq., O.B.E., J.P., (Vice-Chairman)
31.3.1969


Lady Brain
31.3.1970


H. Brinton Esq.
31.3.1968


I. Caplan Esq.
31.3.1969


Mrs. M. E. Clarke
31.3.1969


I. R. Clout Esq., M.A., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P
31.3.1968


Mrs. M. M. Greenaway, J.P., B.A., B.Sc.(Econ.)
31.3.1970


C. J. Grosch Esq., O.B.E., M.A., M.B., B.Ch., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.
31.3.1968


Mrs. M. Gumbel
31.3.1968


Prof. W. J. Hamilton, D.Sc., M.D., F.R.C.O.G., F.R.S.(Edin.)
31.3.1968


E. A. Hills Esq.
31.3.1968


W. A. Hutchinson Esq.
31.3.1968


J. D. Jennings Esq.
31.3.1968


L. Minski Esq., M.D., F.R.C.P., D.P.M.
31.3.1968


T. E. Parker Esq., J.P.
31.3.1969


A. R. Pegler Esq., O.B.E.
31.3.1969


J. T. Pyne Esq., J.P.
31.3.1970


Prof. P. Rhodes, F.R.C.S., F.R.C.O.G.
31.3.1970


A. G. Signy Esq., M.B., B.S., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.
31.3.1970


C. F. Simmonds Esq., J.P.
31.3.1969


Miss F. E. Smith, M.B.E., S.R.N., S.C.M.
31.3.1968


Sir Geoffrey Todd, K.C.V.O., O.B.E., M.B., Ch.M., F.R.C.P.
31.3.1969


Mrs. C. Turquet
31.3.1970


L. S. Wright Esq.
31.3.1969


One vacancy

Nurses (Salaries)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Health when he intends to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the salaries of nurses within the National Health Service.

Mr. K. Robinson: The reference was made on 29th June.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that none of the criteria for increased wages and salaries in the recent White Paper on Prices and Incomes could lead to a rejection of a substantial increase for the nursing profession? When does he expect the Report to be published?

Mr. Robinson: I cannot anticipate the date of the Prices and Incomes Board's Report, but I am satisfied that it will give very full and understanding consideration to the claim on behalf of the nursing profession.

St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health if he will now pay an official visit to St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon.

Mr. K. Robinson: I do not think that such a visit would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the final responsibility for a step which has outraged local opinion is the Minister's, does he not think that, in fairness to himself and the hospital, he should visit it before National Health Service support is withdrawn?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. The grounds which led to the decision to terminate the present contract were not such as to require confirmation by a personal visit whether by the chairman of the regional board or by me.

Kidney Machines

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Health what is the present cost of installing a kidney machine for treatment in a hospital.

Mr. K. Robinson: An average cost would be £2,000 where accommodation and supporting facilities were already available.

Mr. Hall: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the failure to meet the demand for these machines means that some lives which could otherwise be saved are being lost? Would he not agree that if lack of money is holding up their provision he could provide the necessary finance easily by restoring prescription charges?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been following the exchanges in the House on this subject, when I made it abundantly clear time and time again that this is not a question of money. The cost of the apparatus has not inhibited the development of this service, for which accommodation and—perhaps even more important—staff with specialised training are needed.

Mr. Braine: I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but there is anxiety in the country about this. What special steps are being taken to speed up the training of staff and the provision of accommodation?

Mr. Robinson: Staff are being trained in increasing numbers as more units come into operation, as they can be trained only in the units which are functioning. Thus, the process should be and is an accelerating one.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend review the present system, whereby the dialysis department is quite separate from the transplant department for renal failure? Would he try to save money on these machines by having more co-ordination with transplants, thus avoiding the need for trained staff to operate dialysis machines?

Mr. Robinson: When the renal transplant techniques improve, this, one would hope, would reduce the need for dialysis, but I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by the two departments being separate. Often, both form part of a urological unit in the same hospital.

Patients (Average Stay)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Health what figures are available for the average length of time spent by patients in hospital in 1958, 1962 and 1966, respectively; and what studies are being made to reduce the average stay, thus helping the clearing up of hospital waiting lists.

Mr. Snow: 16·3, 14·0 and 12·3 days respectively for patients with acute conditions; a joint Working Party of the Ministry of Health and the Joint Consultants Committee on the organisation of medical work in hospitals is studying this question among others. Studies are also being made by a number of institutions including universities.

Mr. Roberts: But would my hon. Friend consider a nationwide "O and M" analysis in hospitals to see what further reductions can be achieved? Are any figures available for the reductions in the waiting lists which can be achieved merely by reducing the average stay time in hospital by one day?

Mr. Snow: What my hon. Friend wants is I think already being examined by means of the information system known as Hospital Activity Analysis, which provides knowledge about resources used for patient care and the outcome of care. This, it is hoped, will stimulate developments in medical practice.

Hospital House Committees

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Health in view of the fact that in many regions hospital house committees are being disbanded, if he will consider letting the Leagues of Friends undertake the various functions previously undertaken by these committees.

Mr. K. Robinson: This must be left to the discretion of hospital management committees, but I welcome close relations between them and Leagues of Friends. Some of the functions often performed by house committee such as visiting patients would be appropriate to Leagues of Friends.

Dame Joan Vickers: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's policy that these house committees should be closed down? If not, could he advise some of the regions that this is an undesirable practice, because leagues of friends are for collecting money and helping hospitals, whereas the others are for liaison between matrons and staff and the management committees?

Mr. Robinson: I would put the function of leagues of friends rather wider than that. It is my policy and has always been that of my predecessors that matters relating to house committees, which are non-statutory sub-committees, are for the hospital management committees to decide for themselves. The advice has always been given from successive Ministers that they should have no executive functions.

Dr. David Owen: What is my right hon. Friend's attitude to the Farquharson-Lang recommendation that house committees should be abolished? Would he not agree that this cuts down the level of consumer participation and identification with the management of the Health Service?

Mr. Robinson: I have always taken the view that the arguments are evenly balanced for and against house committees: there are advantages and disadvantages. It is not for me to endorse or reject the recommendations of the Farquharson-Lang Report, which was made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I have not, in regard to this recommendation, come down on one side or the other.

Manchester Regional Hospital Board (Dr. Ferguson)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Health if he will hold an inquiry into the dispute between Dr. Ferguson and the Manchester Regional Hospital Board over an alleged breach of contract.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am unable to thank the right hon. Gentleman for that rather dusty reply. Is he aware that this matter has been going on for ten years and that Dr. Ferguson is in some respects being persecuted? Would he consider a public inquiry so that Dr. Ferguson's career can be satisfied and he can render service to the country?

Mr. Robinson: I know that this difficulty has been going on for a long time. It appears that Dr. Ferguson's grievances arise from unsatisfactory personal relationships with the consultant radiologist responsible for the administration of the department. However, I understand that, following the withdrawal of the writ which Dr. Ferguson issued, the Manchester Regional Hospital Board has invited him to discuss his grievances with its full consultant services committee; I very much hope that he will accept this invitation.

Geriatric Beds (Hull Area)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Health how many geriatric beds are available in the Hull area; and what he is doing to remedy any shortage.

Mr. Snow: There are 388. About 50 more will shortly become available at Hull Royal Infirmary. Work on extensions to Castle Hill Hospital, which will provide a further 96 beds, is expected to start this year.

Mr. Johnson: I appreciate the sterling efforts which the Government are making, but is it not a fact that many old people would sooner stay out of the acute hospitals and would sooner stay at home if they were given home help? In considering the problem of catering for geriatric beds, will my hon. Friend bear that in mind and will he give local authorities more power to increase the home help service?

Mr. Snow: I do not think that that arises out of the Question. I think that the existing powers of local authorities are adequate provided that there are the personnel to meet these vacancies. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the additional beds which I have mentioned will produce a situation in the area concerned which is not at all unsatisfactory.

Waiting Lists (Hull Area)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Health how many people are awaiting admission to hospital in the Hull area; whether he is satisfied with the situation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: There are 4,965 in all specialties. A temporary rise had been expected due to the major reorganisation of the hospital services in Hull associated with the commissioning of the new hospital, but the situation should now improve.

Mr. Johnson: While accepting these figures and the fact that conditions as we know them will never be perfect, is the Minister aware that the opening of a new general hospital with magnificent facilities has been welcomed by all sections of the population and that we were most happy to have that event a short time ago?

Mr. Snow: I am glad to hear those remarks from my hon. Friend. He may be interested to know that 78 per cent. of the new beds are now occupied and that the in-patient services at the acute


hospitals which have been replaced were run down to a significant degree, quite deliberately, over a period to facilitate transfers to the new hospital.

Nurses

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health how many nurses are working a full working week in one hospital and then doing a number of shifts in another within the National Health Service.

Mr. Snow: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the field in which this takes place mostly is that of the mental health hospital and that this involves a high degree of risk where a good deal of attention is needed by persons who should not be overworked? Does it not make nonsense of the numbers given for nurses when some nurses are counted twice?

Mr. Snow: We do not have information on this matter. It is obviously a practice which generally should be discouraged if it involves overworking of the nurses concerned and their working long hours. We shall be watching the position, but it is difficult to stop this duplication of employment. It could not be an easy matter to distinguish between additional jobs in a hospital and employment on some entirely different kind of work.

Mr. Molloy: While my hon. Friend is looking at the problem, will he also look into the practice whereby after doing a full stint on duty a nurse is sometimes required then to stand by all through the night? Does he think that that practice is desirable? Is it worth while examining it with the object of eliminating it?

Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend's comments will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate advisory committee.

Patients (Hospital Experiment)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Health if he will call for the case notes or ask for the names and addresses of the five patients concerned in the hospital experiment quoted on page 163 of "Human Guinea Pigs", a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Wood Green; and if he will hold an inquiry into these matters.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. I understand that the nature of the procedure was explained fully to all the patients concerned, who gave their consent.

Mrs. Butler: But as these experiments took place after the 1964 Medical Research Council circular of guidance, and since published case notes give no indication as to whether the patients' consent was obtained, would my right hon. Friend not make this a test case, and publish fully whether patients gave their consent validly, and also whether they have any legitimate grievances about the operations?

Mr. Robinson: The first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary is, I am afraid, inaccurate. The investigation was completed during 1963, and the guidance to which she referred was issued in September, 1964. I have no doubt whatever that my original answer is perfectly correct. I believe that more patients than the five who actually participated were asked if they were prepared to do so and those who refused were not investigated.

Llwynypia Hospital (Casualty Services)

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Minister of Health if he will conduct an inquiry into the failure to recruit medical staff for the accident casualty services at the Llwynypia Hospital.

Mr. Snow: I understand that the Welsh Hospital Board have engaged a locum medical assistant from 6th July, when the casualty service at the hospital will be restored. My right hon. Friend does not consider an inquiry is called for.

Mr. Alec Jones: Would my hon. Friend not agree that even a temporary closure of this hospital entails a much longer journey by patients and is a matter of very great concern among my constituents? Would he further not agree that since this unit has closed on several occasions in the past this itself calls for an inquiry into these temporary closures?

Mr. Snow: These periodic closures at Llwynypia Hospital are a matter of regret, but it is a question of recruiting adequate staff. I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter receives constant attention.

Hospital Facilities, Huntingdon

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that present hospital facilities in Huntingdon and district are inadequate for the population of about 80,000 people for whom provision is required; and what steps are proposed to provide adequate facilities for the rapidly expanding population there.

Mr. K. Robinson: As I explained in a recent letter to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the regional hospital board plan to build a new hospital in Huntingdon. Meanwhile, some improvements will be made to existing hospitals. Services will also be strengthened when the new hospital at Peterborough opens next year and when further accommodation becomes available in the new hospital in Cambridge.

Sir D. Renton: Yes. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the population development of Huntingdon has proceeded at a great pace whereas the number of hospital beds remains approximately the same, and would he not give some indication of when we shall get a new hospital?

Mr. Robinson: The likely increase in the population was certainly one of the main factors taken into account in planning all services for the area, and, no doubt, contributed to the decision of the regional board to build a new hospital in Huntingdon which it had not previously intended to do. It will not be possible on present planning to include the new hospital in the board's programme till after 1975–76. We should like to accelerate the hospital building programme, but this must depend on the general economic situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Children (Welfare Foods)

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Health whether he will seek to make welfare foods available free for children under five years of age in all families with older children in receipt of free school meals.

Mr. Snow: The possibility of a link of this kind is being examined.

Children (Free Welfare Milk)

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Health what measures he proposes to take to ensure that all families with children under five years of age and incomes at or below supplementary benefit level receive free welfare milk.

Mr. Snow: Entitlement to free welfare milk is already made widely known through leaflets, posters, personal advice from health visitors and in other ways. The current leaflet is being revised and other ways of increasing publicity are being considered.

Mr. Archer: Does my hon. Friend accept that in both the cases I put to him the family concerned has already satisfied one authority that it is a low-income family and in need of help? Administratively is it not inconvenient, and from a humane point of view is it not heartless, to submit the families to another grilling to establish the same point?

Mr. Snow: I do not quite understand the reference to a grilling. When families are in need, welfare foods are available free against tokens issued by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The Commission determines entitlement, and inquiries for free supplies should be made at its local offices.

Ambulance Services

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Health what action he now proposes to take on the future control of the ambulance services; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am now studying the memoranda sent to me by the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association and the Greater London Council.

Mr. Moyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his earlier decision to await the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government is causing considerable anxiety and uncertainty amongst the ambulance service with regard to pay, working conditions, and future implementation of his own report on the training of the ambulance services? Would he not agree that this uncertainty could be


resolved by agreeing now that the ambulance services should remain with the local authorities?

Mr. Robinson: This is not a simple matter, and a proper review of all the considerations is bound to take some time, but in considering what final decision I should reach I am taking full account of all the views put to me, including those of the Royal Commission on Local Government.

Drugs (Bulk Purchases)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if he will give the total of his bulk purchases of drugs for the National Health Service under the provisions of Sections 41 and 46 of the Patents Act in each of the last five years.

Mr. K. Robinson: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Pavitt: Can the Minister state whether or not the amount has decreased over the five years and, if it has, can he give an assurance that he will use both Sections of the Patents Act to bring down the high cost of drugs supplied to the National Health Service, not only to hospitals but also to general practitioners?

Mr. Robinson: The amounts have decreased. We have operated only Section 46 in the past. The figures have decreased over the four years in which purchases are made. There were no contracts under Section 46 in 1966, because last year we negotiated price reductions for those drugs which had been Section 46 purchases, which resulted in a net saving to the National Health Service of about £2 million a year.

Mr. Braine: Will the Minister confirm that the voluntary price reduction system is working fairly well? In the light of experience, does not he agree that instead of using Sections 41 and 46 it would be much better, where necessary, to use Sections 32 and 40, in respect of which the matter is governed by a judicial decision?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. Section 46 is a very valuable reserve power for the Minister to have. Were it necessary I would not hesitate to use it. As the hon.

Member knows, all these matters are before the Sainsbury Committee, whose report is expected before long.

Following are the figures:

Central contracts under the provisions of Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949, were made as follows:—


1962
…
…
…
£341,000


1963
…
…
…
£200,200


1964
…
…
…
£158,400


1965
…
…
…
£102,800


1966
…
…
…
Nil.

There have been no central contracts for the Service for drugs supplied by firms granted compulsory licences under Section 41 of the Patents Act, 1949.

Family Doctors (Northern Industrial Areas)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to encourage more family doctors to practise in the industrial areas of the North.

Mr. K. Robinson: Special allowances of £400 a year are payable to general practitioners providing full medical services in chronically under-doctored areas, of which many are in the North. Initial practices allowances are also available in all areas designated as needing more doctors. I am arranging for further publicity to be given to these provisions.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend also consider some increase in remuneration in respect of each patient on a doctor's list if that doctor is working in a designated under-doctored area?

Mr. Robinson: We have approached the matter from a rather different standpoint. Under the new system of remuneration allowances of £400 are payable in respect of doctors practising in areas continuously designated for three years or more by the Medical Practices Committee. My hon. Friend may like to know that these areas currently include a number in Yorkshire—such as Barnsley, Kingston upon Hull, East, Middlesbrough, and Rotherham Rural District.

Dentists (Newcastle-upon Tyne Area)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Health what is the average number of persons per dentist in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne area and how this compares with the figure for the South-East and for the rest of England.

Mr. Snow: At 30th September, 1966, 4,296, 3,382 and 4,538 respectively for dentists providing general dental services.

Mr. Brown: Can my hon. Friend elaborate on that answer and give us a comparison with other areas?

Mr. Snow: If my hon. Friend examines these figures at leisure he will see that they provide the information that he wants. It is no use burking the issue; the Northern Economic Planning Region, as a whole, is one of the least favourable in the country from the point of view of the provision of dentists. My right hon. Friend is sponsoring an inquiry into attitudes to dentistry, which he hopes will provide valuable information on the question why demand for general dental services varies from one region to another.

Family Doctors (Newcastle-upon-Tyne Area)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Health what is the average size of the general practitioners list in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne area; and how this compares with the figure for the South-East and for the rest of England.

Mr. Snow: 2,548, 2,417 and 2,468 respectively for doctors providing full general medical services at 1st October, 1966.

Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that, irrespective of the comparison, there are many more chronic cases of chest complaints, and so forth, in this region, and that this makes the burden on general practitioners much heavier?

Mr. Snow: I should like to consider that point. I will write to my hon. Friend about it. I can tell him, however, that in the area about which he is talking there are no designated areas—that is to say, there is no apparent overall shortage of doctors.

Local Authority Health Committees

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have not co-opted a general medical practitioner as a member of their health committee.

Mr. Snow: The available information is incomplete, but it appears that about

one-fifth of the 174 local health authorities in England and Wales have no co-opted general practitioner member on their health committees.

Sir R. Russell: Does not the Minister agree that it is desirable that they should have co-opted members where local medical practitioners want them? Can he give any reasons why this has been refused in these cases?

Mr. Snow: I think that the short answer is that many local authorities outside the numbers that I have given secure this aid and advice from general practitioners by co-opting them on to subcommittees of their health committee. Apart from that, representatives of local health authorities meet general practitioners on the executive councils so that they do have an opportunity for consultation.

Mr. Braine: But in view of the need for effective liaison between local authority services and family doctors, is it not highly desirable to have a general practitioner representative on these committees wherever possible? Does not the Ministry issue some sort of advice on this matter?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend does give an indication where it is desirable, but he has no power to coerce in these matters. The framework is such that it is fairly easy for a local authority to obtain that advice.

Mentally-Handicapped Children

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Health what plans he has to enable the care of mentally-handicapped children under the age of five years to be undertaken by county council authorities.

Mr. Snow: County councils, as local health authorities, already have the necessary powers.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that certain local authorities take a different view of this matter? Does he realise the problems of mothers with mentally handicapped children under the age of five, living in areas of county councils who do not make this provision? Surely there should be some general provision for all children under five in this difficult position.

Mr. Snow: Many local authorities, to an increasing extent, provide forms of nursery care broadly for 2–5 year-olds in this group. Some of the attendances are on a part-time basis. It is generally considered that apart from advice and guidance—which are provided by the local authority—the best place for little children less than two years old is with the mother. I agree with the hon. Member that this is a matter both for compassion and the exercise of discretionary rights by local authorities.

Mrs. Knight: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that not only the county councils but all local authorities, if they cannot provide a full-time nursery service for such children, would do well to concentrate on providing a part-time service to enable the mothers to have to do less?

Mr. Snow: I would not dissent from that. The authority is embodied in existing legislation, as I said.

Drug Addicts

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Health what financial contribution the Government makes towards the costs of the various voluntary bodies engaged in the rehabilitation of drug addicts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: None, Sir; but I am anxious to improve arrangements for rehabilitation, in which both statutory services and voluntary bodies have parts to play, and I look forward to receiving advice on this difficult subject from the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence.

Mr. Fortescue: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that, in view of the fact that the new facilities envisaged under the Dangerous Drugs Bill are, to say the least, unlikely to operate very quickly he should consider being a little generous with these authorities before that time comes?

Mr. Robinson: It does not follow that all the bodies doing this work wish to receive public funds. I have received only one request, which I am considering. Of course, it does not follow, either, that they are all necessarily more suitable than hospital or local authorities to do this work.

Mental Nurses

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has had on behalf of mental nurses about the proposed reorganisation of the nursing profession; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Health what discussions he is having with the General Nursing Council for England and Wales about the composition and functions of the Mental Nurses Committee and proposed amendments to the Nurses Act, 1964.

Mr. Robinson: I have received a number of representations similar to those sent to me by the hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). My officers will shortly discuss the General Nursing Council's proposals with their representatives.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does this include representatives of the mental nurses? Does the Minister recognise that it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the representation of psychiatric nurses in the bodies representing the nursing profession were to be reduced at this stage at a time when the importance of psychiatric nursing is becoming more and more appreciated in the country?

Mr. Robinson: Representation on the General Nursing Council is a matter for the Council, but I would be very surprised if it did not include psychiatric nurses. Perhaps I should take the opportunity of mentioning that the proposals have given rise to rumours that it is intended to close the mental nursing part of the Register. The General Nursing Council has publicly denied this quite categorically.

Severely Deaf Children, Bedford (Intensive Care Unit)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Health what evidence he has of the need in the Bedford area for a residential intensive care unit for severely deaf children to serve Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, and parts of Hertfordshire; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: I am not sure what kind of care my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he has evidence of some unmet need I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that young children in this area are being sent long distances from home for periods of three months and upwards to receive training? Is he aware that if a unit for training were available in Bedford, on a five-day residential basis, they would be able to go home for the weekend and thus get the best of both worlds?

Mr. Snow: I know that this problem exists. Now that we have more specific information about what my hon. Friend has in mind, we will write to him about it. The case which has been exercising his mind, concerning a girl, Karen Palega, is being examined and I will write to him about it.

Regional Problems (Minister's Advisers)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for his advisers on matters affecting regional problems raised by Members of Parliament to be more widely based and not confined to London so that they have a better knowledge of matters in the country.

Mr. K. Robinson: On regional problems, I am already advised by people with a detailed knowledge of local conditions.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with all the marvellous personnel employed in the work of the regional hospital boards, very much remains to be done? Is he aware that very good advice has been tendered by the regional boards to the Minister but that very little has happened as a consequence? Is he aware that we are led to the conclusion that the Minister's personal advisers, when he receives in- formation from the regions, advise him against what the regions want? Will he please, therefore, see that the top advisers go to the regions?

Mr. Robinson: In answering the question I was not thinking of the regional boards. I have a principal regional officer in every region and there are

doctors, nurses and welfare officers with regional responsibility. Although they are selected for their specialised knowledge, my central advisory committees include members from many parts of the country outside London. For example, on the standing Medical Advisory Committee more than half the members, including the chairman, are from outside London, and the same thing is true of the Central Health Services Council.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the regional confusion which arises from the fact that Ministers answer Questions as though the northeast of this island ended at Newcastle-upon-Tyne and they ignore the north-east of Scotland?

Mr. Robinson: I cannot see anything in the Question or my Answer which could possibly give rise to that misunderstanding.

Contraceptive Pill

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to require doctors to notify him of cases of thrombosis and other side effects in women taking the contraceptive pill, so that a constant check can be kept on the risks involved.

Mr. K. Robinson: Doctors have already been asked to notify the Committee on Safety of Drugs where thrombosis and other adverse reactions are suspected to be associated with the taking of oral contraceptives; I do not think compulsory reporting is necessary but it is important that the Committee should be informed.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the fact that some women are apparently more susceptible than others to blood clots and other side-effects from the pill, does my right hon. Friend not think compulsory notification is absolutely essential to prevent the occasional tragedy which does take place, and to make sure that nothing is overlooked in assessing the long-term factors?

Mr. Robinson: These matters, as my hon. Friend no doubt knows, are all under examination by the Committee on the Safety of Drugs and the Medical Research Council. Compulsory reporting would require legislation, and I have no reason to think that it is required. All doctors


have been reminded on several occasions of the need to report adverse reactions.

Mr. Braine: While I would accept at this stage what the right hon. Gentleman says about compulsory notification, does he not think that a useful purpose might be served by setting up a pilot scheme in selected areas, on a voluntary basis so far as doctors and patients are concerned, to establish whether, prima facie, in a particular locality there is any reason for anxiety? Unless this is done over a period of time we shall not have the evidence.

Mr. Robinson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter is being studied in considerable depth. By the nature of the problem, it will be, I think, some years before we have anything like the final answer, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the requisite material is being collected.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend make a strong recommendation to everyone concerned in the manufacture, distribution and dispensing of the pill to make it quite clear to the increasing number of women who are taking it that there is this possible side-effect of thrombosis and not leave this task to Press reports of coroners' inquests?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I think that warnings of this kind are properly for the general practitioners who write the prescriptions.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some coroners who have not medical knowledge and who are not qualified in statistics have drawn wholly unjustified connections between the taking of the pill and death due to thrombosis? In view of the public anxiety thus caused among many millions of women who are safely taking the pill, will he discourage these pronouncements by coroners?

Mr. Robinson: I do not know about discouraging pronouncements by coroners, but I accept that there have been statements for which there has been a somewhat insufficient basis of fact. I made to the House a statement which helped to put the matter into perspective for these women who are taking oral contraceptives.

Cigarette Advertising

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made towards reaching agreement with cigarette manufacturers regarding the control of advertising and promotional schemes including cigarette coupons.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health what further action will now be taken to curb cigarette advertising, in view of the dangers to health of cigarette smoking including risks of lung cancer, bronchitis, heart disease and eye damage, and in view of the increase in cigarette advertising.

Mr. K. Robinson: No progress has so far been made towards an agreement, but I cannot at present add to the Answer given on 19th June to my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) and Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).—[Vol. 748, c. 1122–3.]

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if a voluntary agreement is not reached Government action will become necessary, and would he be prepared to set a time limit to these negotiations?

Mr. Robinson: I learned this morning that leaders of the industry have asked me if they could come to see me very shortly, and though I have no reason to believe they have come to any agreement yet among themselves, I think I would be well advised to say nothing further to the House till after I have seen them.

Nurse Training Schools (Tutors)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health how many qualified nurse tutors have left nurse training schools in each of the past three years; how many of these left to take up posts in colleges of further education; and what percentage of the total number of nurse tutors they represent.

Mr. K. Robinson: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Braine: Yes, but surely this is something which the Minister should find out. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware


that the number of qualified tutors who have left may be—so I am advised—5 per cent. to 7 per cent. of the total? Is this not? Is he not aware of the great dissatisfaction among qualified nurse tutors, and will he not try to find out the cause of this movement?

Mr. Robinson: A wastage of that order would certainly be serious, but such figures as we have do not bear it out. The number of qualified nurse tutors has gone very slightly up over the last three years; certainly it has not fallen; and the number of unqualified tutors has gone up very considerably.

Deputising Medical Services

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Health whether he will refuse licences to deputising medical services which are owned or financially supported by drug companies.

Mr. K. Robinson: The granting of licences does not arise. The regulations governing the general medical services require the local executive council to decide whether a doctor may use a deputising service. The doctor may appeal to me against the Council's decision.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that with regard to these deputising medical services there is a fear about what may he happening, that certain importers of drugs and foreign drug companies are taking an interest in these services, and that this is dangerous, for if it were to happen it would be the means by which they could sell their own drugs? Would he take such steps as he can to make sure that this does not arise?

Mr. Robinson: I intend to call from time to time for reports from executive councils on deputising services. The question whether any particular method of financing was against the interest of the service would depend on the circumstances. I would be prepared to consider any information on a particular case which the hon. Member would care to provide.

Medical Practitioners (Registration)

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Health what plans he has to review the legislation concerning the registration of medical practitioners.

Mr. K. Robinson: None affecting qualifications for registration.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if Britain is to enter Europe, considerable changes in our registration regulations will be required, and would not this be the appropriate time to think about reviewing them?

Mr. Robinson: I have already answered a Question about the implications for medical registration of possible entry into Europe, but at the present moment the General Medical Council does not have under review the question of qualifications.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Strangers' Gallery

Mr. Winnick: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware of the large number of people waiting to enter the Strangers' Gallery at 2.30 p.m. onwards; and whether any arrangements are in hand to enlarge the amount of accommodation available for visitors.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Richard Crossman): If my hon. Friend is referring to the accommodation available for visitors in the Galleries, this can only be enlarged by rebuilding or by reducing the existing allocation of seats to Members. If, however, he is referring to accommodation available for visitors waiting to get into the Strangers' Gallery, the police do their best to bring in as many as possible under cover, but they must be allowed to exercise their discretion according to the circumstances prevailing at the time.

Mr. Winnick: Has any survey been made to see whether the accommodation can be enlarged? Would my right hon. Friend agree that it should be a matter of great public concern that the accommodation should be so restricted even at the best of times? Perhaps my right hon. Friend could make a statement about the question of the doorkeepers which, perhaps, could lead to further restrictions on public accommodation?

Mr. Crossman: I think the question about the doorkeepers is a separate one. The Services Committee is proceeding to consider the question of extension because


we, too, regard it as of the greatest public interest to maximise the accommodation available for the ever-increasing number of people who want to listen to our debates.

Mr. Costain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we appreciate the difficulty of increasing the accommodation, but it is unfair that the public should be asked to sit or stand in the rain outside these Houses? Would it be possible for them to be accommodated in Westminster Hall while they are waiting?

Mr. Crossman: That matter was referred to in the second part of my Answer. We have to arrange this with the police and have to take their advice, but the maximum cover is provided now.

Members (Health Standards)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received concerning the investigation of health standards and causes of mortality among Members of Parliament; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the British Heart Foundation has recently approached me with a request that it should be permitted to circulate a questionnaire to all Members. I have studied the questionnaire and discussed it with representatives of the Foundation, as well as making sure that it was considered through the usual channels. As a result it has been decided that, while no official support should be given to such an inquiry, there is no objection to the circularisation of the questionnaire to Members by the British Heart Foundation.

Dr. David Kerr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Could he assure the House that the replies to these questions will be treated with the normal standard of professional confidence which prevails among medical men? Secondly, will he assure the House that the results of the questionnaire, if a sufficient number of replies are received to it, could be of value, not only to Members of Parliament, but to other groups outside this House?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I have no doubt of the scientific value of this research

if we can get a sufficiently full return from hon. Members to the rather complicated questionnaire which has been submitted. Naturally I would not have said that I would authorise it if I were not absolutely assured that the replies would be treated confidentially.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while no doubt the organisers responsible for this form are sincere, nevertheless one or two of the questions would be highly embarrassing to hon. Members? For instance, the question:
Do you find being an M.P. frustrating enough to want to give it up?
Does he realise that many of us at this time of the year feel we would like to do so, but we would not do so under the present Government?

Mr. Crossman: I should have thought this was a question of confidentiality. All of us would like to put our views in close secrecy and to write down our answers to these questions.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is eight years since the Government accepted the Convention of the I.L.O. on occupational health services and five years since the then Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, promised me that he would include the health services of this House? Could we now have an industrially trained nurse on the premises?

Mr. Crossman: I should have thought that first it would be better to have the questionnaire and, secondly, the replies to it. When the replies have been studied, I might be able to give an answer to my hon. Friend's question.

New Palace Yard (Mini-cabs)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that advertisements for mini-cabs are displayed in the police box in New Palace Yard; and if he will have these advertisements removed, at least until regulations are brought in to ensure fair competition between mini-cabs and taxis.

Mr. Crossman: The box in New Palace Yard is a private box used by the police and custodians as a sentry box. In it is a telephone which is often used to summon various kinds of transport for Members. For convenience, several of


the more frequently used telephone numbers are shown in the box, including those of several taxi and hire-car firms. I do not propose to have these advertisements removed.

Mr. Macdonald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the feelings of taxicab drivers are quite high at the present time? Does he not consider that in these circumstances the admission of unregulated mini-cabs to New Palace Yard is equivalent to taking sides in this dispute?

Mr. Crossman: I have studied this very carefully before making my first reply. I do not think the fact that an hon. Member can ring up a mini-cab firm and order a mini-cab can be considered a violation of anything at all.

Mr. Hogg: Could we not discontinue the use of the term "mini-cab" for a full-sized vehicle and use other terminology?

Mr. Crossman: I must admit that when I look at my brief I see that I was told not to say "mini-cab" but to say "hire-car".

Refreshment Department Staff (Pay)

Mr. Dance: asked the Lord President of the Council when the staff of the House of Commons Refreshment Department will receive their deferred pay increase.

Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
I hope that negotiations now in progress will be concluded at the latest by the reassembly of the House after the Summer Recess.

Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this whole question is causing very great concern among our loyal and trusted staff? Is he further aware that owing to the action of the Leader of the House they are called on to work hours which are completely unreasonable? What is he going to do about this?

Mr. Maxwell: I am aware that our rates of pay are unsatisfactory, and they are being dealt with. The actions of the Leader of the House are governed by the needs of the House, and people who have taken employment here are well aware of that. Besides an increase in staff wages, it is hoped to improve staff

rest room conditions and to set up Whitley Council style joint consultation machinery. I am aware that the staff generally will welcome this very much.

Catering

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is satisfied that the recent increases, up to 50 per cent., in the cost of meals in the House of Commons square with the Government's policy on prices; which Government Department was consulted before these price increases were made; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
As the Services Committee pointed out in March, the continuing losses on the running of the Department and the bank overdraft to finance the deficit were both very considerable. In view of this serious situation, the Catering Sub-Committee urgenly sought remedies, which included certain increases in banqueting prices. Most of the increases are considerably less than 50 per cent. The increases take account of improved quality, and the abolition of separate charges for such things as menus, flowers, and cloakrooms. No Government Department was consulted.
I will arrange for details of the increases to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee aware that the present prices may well put paid to constituency dinners, and, now that hon. Members are paying very much more, will he consider back-dating the staff pay increase to at least 1st July?

Mr. Maxwell: I cannot agree with the first part of that supplementary question. Of 100 constituency dinners which have been notified since this price increase, only about four were cancelled because of the increase. Back-dating any wage increase, in view of the present situation of the Catering Department, would not be possible.

Mr. Rankin: Did my hon. Friend or any other responsible member of the Committee make an application to the National Board for Prices and Incomes to raise prices before they proceeded to do so?

Mr. Maxwell: The Catering Sub-Committee were not required to submit this question to any Government Department. We had a situation to deal with in which we were in considerable deficit. The Catering Sub-Committee took such steps as they found possible in order to remedy that situation and, in particular, to bring our banqueting charges more into line with those prevailing for similar services outside.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

Following are the details of the increases:

House Sitting

7s. 6d. increase on 3 course lunch (from 25s. to 32s. 6d.).
10s. increase on 4 course lunch (from 30s. to 40s.).
15s. increase on 5 course lunch (from 32s. 6d. to 47s. 6d.).
5s. increase on 3 course dinner (from 27s. 6d. to 32s. 6d.).
10s. increase on 4 course dinner (from 32s. 6d. to 42s. 6d.).
15s. increase on 5 course dinner (from 35s. to 50s.).

House not Sitting (dinners only served)

15s. increase on 3 course dinner (from 30s. to 45s.).
12s. 6d. increase on 4 course dinner (from 37s. 6d. to 50s.).
17s. 6d. increase on 5 course dinner (from 42s. 6d. to 60s.).

Clerk's Department (Staff)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council how many extra clerks have been recruited to service the anticipated new specialist and other committees as from the beginning of the next Session.

Mr. Crossman: The question of additional staff for the Clerk's Department, in order to ensure that the House is properly served next Session, is under urgent consideration.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the staff are not recruited now there is no hope of getting the increased number of specialist committees which he and I are agreed we ought to have? Can he make a specific statement as to how many clerks he has in

mind as needing to be recruited for the plans which he has in mind?

Mr. Crossman: I do not underestimate the seriousness of the situation. It is not only a question of recruiting new clerks for further committees. It is a question of recruiting sufficient clerks to maintain even the present level of our work. I am glad to say that I am having an urgent talk with the Chancellor of the Exchequer this week about it.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can the Leader of the House assure the House that it is this House which decides how many clerks we need to perform the duties and nobody else, and also that we decide how much they shall be paid?

Mr. Crossman: Of course it is this House which decides how many clerks we need. The question of how much they should be paid is more complex. We have to relate the pay of clerks here to the pay of civil servants outside, and others, and to keep it in accord with the prices and incomes policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Paymaster-General what work he undertakes as a member of the Committee of the Privy Council on Trade and Foreign Plantations.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): None, Sir.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my apologies for making his first word for several months a four-letter word? Secondly, bearing in mind the fact that he has not made a speech in this House for two years and three months, may we be assured that in none of his duties he is being overworked?

Mr. Wigg: How that supplementary question arises from the original Question is rather beyond me. But as the hon. Member has put down the same question in a slightly varied form first in 1953, then in 1955 and then in 1967, despite the authoritative accounts of the workings of the Board of Trade by Sir Hubert Llewellyn-Smith published in 1928, the only conclusion that I can reach is that he has been wasting the time of the House.

ALGIERS (BRITISH PILOTS)

Lord Balniel: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the safety of the two pilots Captain Taylor and Captain Copplestone at present held in Algiers.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Yes. The Head of the British Interests Section in Algiers spoke on 1st and 2nd July and again this morning to the Algerian authorities to inquire:

(i) if any charges were being preferred;
(ii) if none, why the British crew and aircraft were still being held.
In the absence of any satisfactory response, the Swiss Government, which protects British interests in Algeria, are being asked to make formal representations on our behalf. We have no reason for anxiety about the safety of the two pilots.

Lord Balniel: Is the Minister aware that we appreciate the prompt and correct action taken by the British Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy? Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue this question of releasing the two pilots very vigorously indeed, because continued detention without any charge is quite unacceptable? If there is any prolonged delay, will he report back again to the House?

Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. We will certainly keep the House informed and will press to get these pilots released as soon as possible.

Mr. Paget: But does not the matter go a little further than this? It appears that a British aeroplane has been hijacked for the purpose of kidnapping and judicially murdering a political refugee. Are we not going to do anything about it?

Mr. Mulley: I do not know what my hon. and learned Friend would suggest. We have already asked the Swiss Government to make the strongest representations about this incident. The aircraft in question was on charter to a foreign company at the time of the incident.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the Foreign Office been able to assure Gregory Air

Services that what Mr. Gregory described as "Pussyfooting methods" do not accurately describe the action taken by the Foreign Office on this matter? On the question of the political refugee mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), would not the Minister of State agree that extradition for political purposes would add atrocity to piracy?

Mr. Mulley: The gentleman in question is not a British citizen so we have no means of making direct representations in that sense—[Interruption.] I am not aware of Mr. Gregory's remark about "pussy-footing". We have been in touch with Mr. Gregory and told him all we know, and have got additional information from him. I know of no other way in relation to a foreign country other than to make representations through diplomatic channels.

Mr. Maxwell: Will not my right hon. Friend consider inviting the French Government to make representations on behalf of the British pilots, since it is well known that their influence in Algeria is very strong? I hope that matters of protocol will not prevent my right hon. Friend from asking the French Government to help in the release of these pilots.

Mr. Mulley: First of all, we have to get more knowledge of the facts, and it is only right and proper to go through established diplomatic channels, the Swiss Government, which represent our interests, and do so with great satisfaction to us and conduct in the normal way the formal representations we have asked them to make.

Sir A. V. Harvey: As this British-registered aircraft was flying between two Spanish airfields, will the Minister consult the Spanish authorities and see what they intend to do to help in the matter? Is he aware that it is quite intolerable that the British should be pushed about in the Middle East like this almost daily; and that the House is just not going to accept it?

Mr. Mulley: The pushing around in this case took place off the coast of Spain, and nowhere near the Middle East. The Spanish Government will no doubt be taking an active interest in this matter because I understand that Spanish nationals are also involved.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before we get too morally steamed-up over this issue, let us remember that there is a first-class precedent for what has just happened—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Price: Then I will ask a question. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the incident of which we now rightly complain has a perfect precedent in the extradition of Adolf Eichmann from South America, and his subsequent trial and execution in the Middle East?

Mr. Mulley: I think that I would be better advised to deal with this particular case on its merits.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Could the Minister be a little more explicit? Was not this aircraft a British aircraft piloted by British pilots and therefore, were not the passengers, whoever they might be, entitled to the protection of the British Government?

Mr. Mulley: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not know how one can provide effective air protection for every aircraft. This is only a six-seater aircraft, registered in this country. This is, as I have already said, a British plane registered in this country, owned by Air Hanson Ltd., operated by Gregory Air Services, and, at the time in question, was on charter to a Liechtenstein company named Sedefi. We have no information beyond that, and until we can establish what actually happened the course of action to take is a little difficult to determine.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Later—

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would seek your help. Referring to the recent discussion we have had on the British aircraft that has been forced down, one of the pilots is resident in Ealing. I tried to catch your eye, because I have an important question to put to the Minister. I wonder whether you can help me?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker is not omniscient. [Laughter.] I speak seriously. It would help if hon. Gentlemen who have a constituency or personal interest in a

Question like this would let Mr. Speaker know. It is just manifestly impossible for Mr. Speaker to know whose constituency or personal interests will be affected by a Private Notice Question. In the circumstances, the hon. Member may put a question.

Mr. Molloy: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Statements have been made in today's newspapers, which I believe will cause some distress to relatives of one of the pilots concerned, that my hon. Friend's Department was very lax in making inquiries. It would appear from what my right hon. Friend has said that his Department was not lax and will he make that transparently clear? Is there not some reponsibility on people like those who run Gregory Air Services to see that their staff have certain safeguards—they ought to have certain safeguards—and that they should not, when something goes wrong, be keen to thrust all the blame on a Government Department?

Mr. Mulley: It is not new, of course, that the Government of the day get blamed for many things—including the weather—from time to time. We will certainly bring my hon. Friend's point to the attention of Gregory Air Services and the fact that from the moment we had information of the incident, which we got from Spanish sources, our man in Algiers went immediately to contact the Algerian authorities. It is certainly due to no lack of effort on his part that we have not got satisfactory answers at the moment.

Sir C. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are many questions in which many of us are interested which have not been allowed to be asked. Many of us would like to know who kidnapped this British aircraft. We do not know.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Parliamentarian. He knows that he cannot put in the guise of a point of order a supplementary question that he was not called to ask.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Gardner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to a matter which you may think constitutes a breach of Privilege. I refer to a report in The Times newspaper


today of a speech made over the weekend by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in which some hon. Members—those who support the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill—are accused of depravity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and furthermore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue his case. If he wishes to raise the matter on a point of order he must read that of which he is complaining.

Mr. Gardner: Quoting one sentence from the report, it states:
Labour members of Parliament peddle abortion.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give your consideration to this matter as a breach of Privilege.

(Copy of newspaper handed in.)

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member is seeking to raise as a matter that he alleges is a breach of Privilege something which appears in The Times newspaper of Monday 3rd July—Monday, this day—namely, a paragraph or passage headed: "Labour attacked for 'depravity'." I will, in accordance with the usual custom, look at the passage and give a Ruling on it tomorrow.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Rights and Liberties of the Subject

Dame Irene Ward: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 17th July, I shall call attention to the threat to the rights and liberties of the subject, and move a Resolution.

National Power Policy

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 17th July, I shall call attention to the necessity for a national power policy, and move a Resolution.

Arms Programme

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 17th July, I shall call attention to the need to reduce the arms programme, and move a Resolution.

WAR TOYS (BAN)

3.43 p.m.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: I beg to move,
That this House, conscious of the need to create the environment in which a sense of world community can develop, which is impossible at present due to the dangerous cult of violence and militarism, is of opinion that the sale, manufacture, import, export and advertisement of war toys in the Press and magazines and on television should be banned.
I am deeply grieved that the Minister recently appointed as Minister responsible for disarmament within the Foreign Office has not seen fit to attend this debate. I have been trying to get him to state that he would be here at least to reply to the remarks that I and other hon. Members make on what may be one of the last occasions on which this House is able to discuss the question of violence before the third world war breaks out.
U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has warned that we may well be within the first phase of the third world war and I find it deeply troubling that the Government are so little interested in concerning themselves with the creation of the kind of environment in which young people may be able to grow up as citizens of a world community that they do not send along to the debate a key Minister, who is, after all, concerned with this matter. There are, apparently, 29 departments of the Foreign Office, of which one is concerned with atomic energy and disarmament. There should be a department, a key department, that is pressing for world citizenship, and I would have thought that the Minister responsible for disarmament would have been concerned with creating such a department.
Recently, we have heard from many quarters of the various kinds of mental sickness afflicting young people not only in our own country but throughout the world, and Pope Paul in his latest encyclical said that the world was sick. I do not think that there can be an hon. Member who does not feel deeply that in very many ways the world is sick, and perhaps we do not altogether yet understand to what extent we are putting young people under pressure.
Over the last few months, I have made up my mind to try to look at one small aspect of what I would term the sickness afflicting our present society—the physical violence. I have not had time to do very much shopping around myself, but my mother has done so and has brought me an armoury of modern war toys which is absolutely horrifying. These toys range from flame-throwers to guns through to bombs, booby-traps and a whole mass of weaponry of the sort actually being used not only in Vietnam, about which so many hon. Members, including myself, are concerned, but in the Middle East.
The number of offences against the person has increased enormously in our nation. In 1938, the total was 2,721; in 1963, the last year for which I have been able to obtain figures, the total was 20,083. I do not take this as a sign that we should reintroduce capital punishment. On the contrary, I believe that, as a result of such figures, we should examine the whole rôle of violence in our society and what perhaps we are allowing to be inflicted on our young people—and not only on the young people. I would like to see legislation emerge as a result perhaps of some months or even a year's debate and argument within our country on this matter. The kind of legislation that I would like to see would refer to something constructive as opposed merely to banning certain kinds of war toys and of advertisements on television, radio and in horror comics.
We should stress far more the kind of constructive material which our children should be able to use. One of the great joys of my life was a doll's house. This is a very obvious sort of play toy for a little girl. One of the less obvious types of toy which I enjoyed was a piece of lino which my father put on a trestle table. He spread some sand across it and made little paths, and I then collected the toys to make it into a farmyard. This helped me to use my imagination and use a little initiative. When I was given my 6d. a week—which went up to 9d. when I became about nine years of age—I would buy a toy and place it in my farmyard. These are the kinds of toys which we should encourage children to have, use and collect.
We should encourage them to paint toys and to have constructional toys of many different types. What we should not try to do is to impress upon them our own acceptance of violence which unfortunately our world in its present situation accepts. I find it astonishing that people who have a wide understanding of politics are not more concerned at this stage of human development with this situation.
Every Christmas there is a war toy orgy—I can use no other term. There is an "Airwar" comic which comes from the United States which sells here for 1s.—heaven knows how we find the dollars to import these things—which has an advertisement with a whole range of different types of guns. It says:
It's a Daisy! Just leave this page next to Dad's place at the table some time between now and Christmas. If we know Pop, he will be as excited as you when you open that package on Christmas morning.
Then there are seven choices of guns.
One of the interesting things which my mother has discovered while buying my "Annie's Armoury" has been that the shop assistants themselves are rather revolted at having to sell this plastic trash across the counters. They feel deeply offended about this. One young man came down to my home just before last Christmas—he refused to accept any kind of fee or payment for his coming—and showed me how to let off some of these plastic toys so that if I were to get on television I would know how to pull the trigger effectively. I found this rather moving. He was a very nice lad and his father had been in the Royal Marines. He was not a soppy ass, but he was a person who felt offended at the kind of rubbish that he was being asked to sell across the counters of a well-known and famous store in Surrey.
It is not only that we have these toys in the shops. One of the problems is that the toy manufacturers are deliberately building up an appetite for such toys. I have debated this matter at least twice and discussed it also with the Chairman of the British Toy Manufacturers' Association. They talk, like all business men, about the market and about the possibilities of sales, etc. I am a Socialist and I do not think that this of itself is good enough. We have to discuss what people


need as opposed to what makes most money. They try to sound responsible, but these chaps who make the toys are not as responsible as hon. Members would wish them to be, and I am sure that the women of this country would not wish to hear the kinds of argument that some of them are prepared to put.
This vicarious violence is put across on television, in horror comics and many other ways, using to the extreme every form of mass media. The situation in the United States is infinitely worse, but I am anxious that we shall stop it now from infiltrating and infecting and affecting more and more of our young people.
One of the signs that one sees in toy-shops today is:
YOU need Tommy Gunn. Kit out your Action Man for every phase of military service with these authentic true scale equipment sets"—
of which there are at least 50, and included in these sets are the most astonishing weapons of torture and destruction. This is what was chosen last year as the toy of the year for Britain—Action Man. What a comment on our society.
U Thant said recently:
If you recall the series of events leading to World War I, and World War II, you will realise the prologues were quite long: the psychological climate, the creation of political attitudes took some time, and when conditions were ripe for some plausible excuse, then the global wars were triggered off.
I beg my colleagues in the House of Commons today to understand what is being done to young minds. They are being conditioned to accept war, cruelty and violence as the normal thing. I should have thought that this country, with all its faults, but with its political maturity, might have understood that it could play a rôle in creating a different environment for young people.
We do not know what will happen in the next few years. I was talking to an 18-year-old girl hairdresser the other day and she said: "We do not think there is much hope, and the Jehovah's Witnesses say that the world is coming to an end in 1975 and they are the only people who will be able to survive. I do not think that is very fair. I do not see why the good people should not survive as well as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Personally I

do not accept it". I said, "I think that is a bit much". She said, "You know, generally the boys are not much good these days". I said, "What do you mean by that? Do they expect too much?". She said, "It is not only that. If they have a date with you they do not let you know when they are not going to keep it. Moreover, a lot of them steal your money".
I give this as an illustration as it was told to me. I am deeply worried, and I am sure many of us are—particularly those who are parents—about the attitude of the young and the feeling that the world is coming to an end. She said that the general feeling is that the world will not survive. In those circumstances, is it not right that this House should turn its mind attentively, thoughtfully and imaginatively to trying to change the whole feeling in which young people are educated and brought up? Is it not right that we should decide to try to do something about it? How is it, when we have a Minister for Disarmament, that he cannot come to the House and say something about this key subject?
It may be that there will not be a war in 1975, as the Jehovah's Witnesses predict. I do not think that there will be, and in any event I do not see how they should pick the right year. However, there is a great danger of world war breaking out in the next ten or twenty years, and it seems to me that there is a chance that our young people could help to create the kind of society in which the killing of other human beings who happen to have different beliefs cannot occur.
A very wise American Senator said recently:
If a child is permitted to sit like a vegetable pursuing moronic murders and ceaseless crimes, he suffers
—and his parents do, too, in the end.
Many studies have been completed, particularly in the United States, although there we seem not yet to be aware of the seriousness of the problems which may be confronting us. They describe the effects of radio and comics portraying violent scenes. The reactions among children vary from mild anxiety to nightmares, from pulling bedclothes over their heads to bed wetting, and those children not becoming actively delinquent are becoming more and more passively jaded.


As a kind of self-protection, they develop thick skins to avoid being upset by the gouging out of eyes, the smashings and the burnings. Advertised on television, they see so much that is horrible and anxiety-making that they cease to be fully human.
That is the view of people who are studying these matters in the United States where, for ten years, television, horror comics and war toys have really got a grip on children. I am terribly anxious that this country shall wake up in time to stop this evil permeating our own society. For a long while, I have had the feeling that this country is particularly well placed, as it were, to provide a bridge between the extremes of capitalism and the extremes of Communism. After all, we had one of the earliest revolutions, and, with the experience that we have gained, I have long had the feeling that we could play an unusually significant rôle in trying to wake up men and women to their responsibilities and to the need for change, even change of a type which could hurt their pockets.
It is with that feeling that I move this Motion. I hope very much that there will be a contribution from our Minister for Disarmament, because I am sure that no one wishes more than he to create the kind of environment in which people throughout the world will understand the need for really radical change whereby the poor have to be fed and the rich have to stop killing.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I am sure the House will appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) in moving her Motion. I can remember visiting Canada as a junior Minister. I arrived at Winnipeg and went to a party. The first people to arrive at the party told us of the Cuba ultimatum and, in the middle of the party, the Town Clerk of Winnipeg went off to see that everything was in order for the civil defence of Winnipeg. That brought home the situation vividly to me. The feeling that war was imminent at that time was much greater in North America than it was in this country.
We all felt, too, the other day that we were on the brink. There is no doubt

that the younger generation feel, as the hon. Lady has pointed out, that the world may not have all that many years to live, and that the human race may not survive if we are guilty of the supreme folly. I have always believed that the aim should be to establish some form of world order, and I pay tribute to what Lord Attlee has done over many years and what Conservative Governments have stated in many White Papers on defence, that the ultimate aim was to get some form of world order. We must all accept that.
In my own city of Liverpool, I am taking part on Wednesday in a great discussion on the film, "The War Game". I believe that it is something that everyone ought to see. Before about 1,700 sixth-formers, there will be discussion in the Philharmonic Hall in Liverpool.
But what is actually being done? Terribly little, I am afraid. The world looks like going further ahead in having more H-bombs and having more countries possessing them. One has only to read the official communications of the People's Republic of China to wonder what they will do with theirs.
This morning, I have been looking at a Report issued by U.N.E.S.C.O. of the Associated Schools Project at the Primary Level. It is a study of other countries and other cultures in promoting education for international understanding. It is a report of an international seminar organised at Cheltenham last year by the U.N.E.S.C.O. Institute for Education. There is no mention in that report of the importance of toys and of the ways that toys can influence the mind of a child.
There is a rather interesting story in the report:
One of the classes had been doing a study of Holland, and we took with us an official from the Dutch Embassy because we thought that he would be interested in the work.
It goes on to describe how he had some particularly interesting cuff-links, made of silver and elaborately moulded. He told the children that they were made from buttons worn by fishermen in a certain region of Holland and that they were used in times gone by as a form of insurance policy supposing they were drowned at sea.
About half an hour later we were in another part of the school and a small boy about seven years old … came up to us and


said that he wished to ask a question … The question was: 'Did you cut those cufflinks off the jacket of a dead man?' The Dutchman assured him that he did not, and I felt, as this boy thanked him and went away, that the child was slightly disappointed.
This, of course, is reality. Unfortunately, mankind is pugnacious. To many people, destruction is fun. We can see that at a church fete, where people will pay 6d. or 1s. to break crockery. They enjoy destruction, but it us up to us to see that our law controls our more bestial instincts. Because people enjoy destruction, I fear that the resolution is somewhat unrealistic, although I appreciate the hon. Lady's aim.
The U.N.E.S.C.O. report adds:
I think that serves to remind us of three things about children of the age with which we are concerned …

(a) that in fact they have a fascination with violence
(b) that they are interested by the exotic, and
(c) that you can never be quite sure;…
what particular point or item will excite the imagination of a particular child.
Children like up-to-date toys or even those that grasp the future; hence the interest in spacemen. How different toys are now from what I had in my youth! I remember a game called "L'Attaque". There was one piece which alone could capture the commander-in-chief, and that was the spy. It would be better if that game were brought up to date, and the children of today used models of an international police force, however discredited the United Nations may be at present. I should welcome the day that I saw such a toy. I fear, too, that it will be a long time before children prefer to have models of the great benefactors of humanity rather than their national heroes.
If we are to survive, it is tremendously important that the younger generation should think of the future, and what life will probably be like in the year 2000. Very few of us give enough attention to arguing what we want to see in England or in the world then, but, after all, in only 33 years the children now playing with toys should be at their prime.
In March this year I went to Quemoy. Having seen the army underground with all its stores and weapons, and its tanks in great tank tunnels, I went down to the shore and had my first experience of

psychological warfare. I learned how the human voice can carry for 18 kilometres and how there are ways of propagating ideas by balloon or the propaganda shell—one of which had wounded five people the afternoon before on the island. I should like to see some form of psychological warfare toy, because we live in an age of religious and ideological controversy and it is right that today's children should know what our form of democracy stands for and that it should impinge right down to their games.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good thing if world civics were taught in school so that young people understood not only our form of democracy but also other people's, and forms of Government which we may not yet accept as being democratic?

Mr. Tilney: Yes, but I still believe that it is a good thing for the western world to inculcate in its young the tenets of our faith. I use the word "faith" in the broadest possible way. I do not believe that it is right to allow the young mind to be muddled by also hearing, say, the views of a Communist Chinese. One has only to read what the Communist Chinese put out officially today to understand that.
I would strongly oppose their hearing such views, but I would equally strongly support the exchange of toys and ideas between one country and another. In the U.N.E.S.C.O. report which I have quoted there is a suggestion that schools in advanced countries should link up with schools in developing countries and exchange the things which interest the children most in their own countries. This seems to me a good idea, because children like concrete things to play with and see which they may not play with and see in the ordinary way.
What is a toy? The dictionary tells me that it is a child's plaything, a trifle, a matter of no importance. There I disagree profoundly with the dictionary. I think that it is a matter of importance affecting the mind of the young. There can also be toys which adults enjoy—not only railway trains but toys for the masses, like planetarium, which makes space into a toy and gives great enjoyment to old and young.
I have one suggestion to make which would give the young some idea of world community. I went to a Civic Trust demonstration at Basingstoke last autumn and met the head of the opencast coal-mining section of the National Coal Board. He told me of plans to turn a rather uninteresting part of the Midlands into parkland after the coal had been extracted. In that park I suggest having what might be called Orbis Marium, or a model of the world to show in a way how small it is, and how little land there is compared with the sea, which could be represented by the lakes which I understand from my friend would be planned there.
It would be a tremendous tourist attraction. Visitors could go by boat either into the mock Baltic Sea or the Mediterranean. I believe that children would get some idea of the map of the world, because everything could be done to scale. The park would need to be several miles in diameter, but I understand that that is the planned size. It is the sort of thing that could be a toy for old and young.
For centuries the ethos of the schools has been nationalistic, but I believe that history will say that the two world wars were really civil European wars. Anything we can do to stop them happening again is to be commended.

4.19 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I think it would be helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) and other hon. Members who wish to speak if I intervene now to try to explain what the Government's position would be if the Motion were approved and the House, in effect, instructed the Government to carry out its terms.
I should also like to explain why the Minister whom my hon. Friend wished to see here is not present. With respect, the reason lies in the wording of her Motion. If she had wished the Minister responsible for disarmament to be here, she should have drawn attention to the disarmament part of the argument which she has put forward. In the discussions which we had to decide where Ministerial responsibility lies here, we felt that it fell

between the Department of Education and Science, the Home Office and the Board of Trade, but nobody suggested the Foreign Office.
I do not wish to comment on the case my hon. Friend has advanced. I, too, pay tribute to her sincerity and the purpose of the Motion. But it will be clear that it would be quite inappropriate for a Board of Trade Minister to express views on my hon. Friend's arguments. I wish to confine myself to the administrative position.

Mrs. Kerr: That is exactly the point. I never thought that it was the job of a Minister of the Board of Trade to reply to or speak in this debate. That is why I pressed my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for disarmament matters, to speak in this debate.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend's Motion asks for the banning of the
sale, manufacture, import, export and advertisement of war toys".
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the Foreign Office. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has no responsibility in connection with the Motion. As I say, if its terms had been expressed differently, I could well envisage how my right hon. Friend would be involved. If I might put the order slightly differently, I should say that my hon. Friend has asked for a ban on the manufacture, importing, exporting, advertising and selling of war toys.
The Board of Trade has some general powers in this wide field, but in practice it never exercises them other than for strictly commercial reasons. Neither the Board of Trade nor any other Department has general powers to forbid the manufacture of goods. If Parliament agrees that the manufacture of certain things—for instance, war toys—shall be prohibited for reasons of health, safety or social or moral welfare, it is the appropriate Department which is responsible for health, safety and welfare which introduces the legislation. For instance, safety regulations and the prohibition on the sale and manufacture of dangerously unsafe articles are the responsibility of the Home Office, and dangerous drugs questions are decided between the Home Office and the Ministry of Health. Obscene publications come under the Home


Office. Therefore, if the manufacture of war toys is to be banned, the prohibition would require special legislation and would have to be the responsibility of a Department concerned with the social and moral welfare of children.
The Board of Trade has unlimited powers to control exports and imports under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which is still in force, and toys of this description could be controlled by an addition to the respective Orders made by the Board under these powers. Such action could be taken administratively and would not require Parliamentary approval. But, because of the strength and wide sweeping nature of these powers, it would be quite inappropriate to use them to institute any form of control over either the import or export of goods for social or moral purposes. The policy of successive Governments—and this must continue to be the policy of succeeding Governments—has been to use the Board's power to control imports only for broad economic or commercial purposes and powers to control exports only for military or strategic reasons.
My hon. Friend asked where the dollars came from to pay for the horror toys which she described, imported, I think, from the United States. There are two issues. One is concern with the proper development of trade, and the other is who imports these toys. It is obviously British merchants and shopkeepers who import them. Any educational campaign on imports should be directed at the people buying toys for sale in this country if it is generally considered that the sale of them is harmful to children.
The United Kingdom toy industry is one of our most flourishing industries, even though it consists of a few medium firms and a very large number of small firms. Last year, £16 million worth of British toys, I am pleased to say, were exported overseas. The United Kingdom industry produces some war toys, both for the home market and for export, in response, I would suppose, to demand. It would not produce them if there were no demand for them. Some of them are conventional representations—the sort of toy soldiers which I am sure every pacifist played with in his youth. I certainly did.

Others, such as rockets—and this is where my hon. Friend's criticism begins to bite—reflect the more modern techniques of war.
The United Kingdom toy industry has a reasonably sensitive social conscience. It has set its face against dangerous toys and it has helped the Home Office considerably to draw up, as I suppose one would call it, a code of standards, which is very satisfactory indeed, in order to keep dangerous toys off the market. I am sure that it would behave in much the same way in respect of war toys if it were satisfied that they created moral and psychological hazards for children. But I suppose that it, and probably the majority of the public of this country, would need to be persuaded that the manufacture and the sale of certain war toys should be stopped.
Generally speaking, we want United Kingdom toys to be sold increasingly overseas, and to ban imports except for strictly moral or social reasons which would have to be proved, or to put any obstacle in the way of the import of other countries' toys, might well invite retaliatory action against our own exports.
That brings me to what, from our point of view, would be one of our extreme difficulties if we were to accept the Motion—the problem of definition. If playing with toys which have anything to do with war is bad for children, I would assume that reading about battles or fights, or watching them on television or in the cinema, was equally bad. However much we deplore force as a habit of settling disputes, the fact remains that history is full of it, and we cannot very well rewrite history so that the battles of the past have no psychological effect on the children of the present age. I do not need to labour that point; it is obvious.
My hon. Friend's emphasis has been on toys which have something to do with war. This raises problems of definition. Not only a gun or sword can be an offensive weapon. What about bows and arrows, which are used for sporting purposes and which have nothing to do with any warlike activities at present, although they had something to do with warlike activities in the past? Sticks and stones and penknives are, I suppose, more offensive weapons than some of the toys being


sold in the shops. Difficulties of definition would be bound to arise.
I have intervened only to explain the administrative problems which would be involved if the Motion were carried. But, if I might express a personal view, I do not think that it is so much the toys which one needs to worry about; it is the general education of our children which is tremendously important. Most of the pacifists I know played with warlike toys in their youth. I do not know whether that goes for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but he would be an exception if he never played with toy soldiers when he was young. It is the general education and the educational atmosphere of the country with which we need be concerned. With that, I would put horror films, horror comics and horror literature. But I am not sure that we should put horror toys in the same category because they can be so easily broken and thrown away.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) will not take anything which I say in my brief intervention as a reflection of the sincerity with which she has moved her Motion, which we all recognise. I hope, however, that she in her turn will accept that others can take different views and still be equally sincere.
If I say to the hon. Lady that her Motion seems to me to be about the most middled and misconceived Motion which I have seen on the Order Paper since I have been fortunate enough to be a Member of the House—and I include in that for good measure Motions put down by the Government Front Bench, which at times are muddled and misconceived enough—I hope that she will understand that I say it because this is a Motion to be debated and I wish to take it on such merits as it may seem to have. For me, they are not many.
As the Minister of State, Board of Trade has explained, it is a little unnecessary of the hon. Lady to complain of the absence of a Minister for Disarmament, at least for a Motion which, on the face of it, appears to have nothing whatever to do with the Foreign Office. Disarmament is certainly too serious a matter to be

left to the Board of Trade. If, however, the hon. Lady wishes to have a Minister for Disarmament here, it was up to her to make it clear in the terms of her Motion.
Underlying the Motion and much of the speech in which the hon. Lady moved it is one assumption even more fundamentally mistaken than some of the others which also underlie it: that is, that by banning war toys, whatever they may be, we would achieve the effect of bringing about the environment to which the hon. Lady refers in her Motion. She certainly has not established to my satisfaction that if war toys are any cause of that environment, they are in any way a prime cause. The hon. Lady gave that away by referring to the other serious influences which we all know to exist in our society.
There are other underlying reasons for the dangerous spate of violence which we certainly and regrettably see all too often—violence on television and on radio, violence in fact or fiction reported by all the media with which we are familiar, then, too, there is the disorientation of society which we know to be coming about as established values and traditions are destroyed, some by accident, some deliberately, and whose destruction has the effect of leaving adults often groping, frequently unaware where they can turn or why the world should go on, even if they accept that the Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to be wrong about the date of its end. These are all good, sound and serious reasons for there being a situation which we can all deplore.
To say, however, that the existence of war toys is a cause seems to me to be putting it rather high, let alone to suggest, as does the Motion, that it may be the prime cause. If the hon. Lady wants to take steps towards creating a better environment, she would do better to start examining some of the other causes which I have mentioned. If she wants to investigate any aspect of toys, perhaps it is the danger to the user which the most peaceful toy may inadvertently have—for example, a doll which bursts into flames. It is not a war toy, but a dangerous toy, to which the hon. Lady's attention should be directed.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: A demonstration of that aspect has already been given to all lady Members of the House who are mothers, including myself.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. One of the toys to which the Government have drawn attention is a dangerous toy which I found in the possession of my youngest daughter, and I would not suggest that time spent in dealing with matters of that kind would be wasted. If the hon. Lady is interested in such good work as this, she should go on with it and she should not move into so speculative a field as the present one.
If the hon. Lady seeks reasons for the unsatisfactory behaviour of hairdressers' boy friends, it is a pretty farfetched assumption that it rests on their playing with war toys before they were ever interested in girls.
Even if it were possible to carry out what the hon. Lady seeks to have done, would it have any effect on children? This the hon. Lady has not established. I do not know how many children she has. I have four, and their ability to improvise never ceases to amaze me. Am I to turn them over to the local police if they come in from the garden with a stick or a bit of wood and say, "Look, we have made a gun"? If they produce a paper bag full of water and say, "This is a bomb"—which they have manufactured—am I to turn them in? By reducing it to its absurdity, that is carrying a Motion to a point where we can all see that it would be impossible to enforce.
The hon. Lady should also have thought that the existence of toys and the fact that children move often into a fantasy world of mock violence, as we know they do, may help them to get some of the aggressions out of their system and that hon. Members opposite, as they drilled their toy soldiers in the days of their youth, might have been forming the basis for the militant pacifism for which we know so many of them so well.
Much more important is the question of aggression against whom. This is something which we often forget. When my young son went first to a village school in the Battle of Britain country, I noticed that he came back drawing with considerable skill dogfights in which British aeroplanes were shooting down German aeroplanes, with the swastikas on the German aeroplanes the right way up

—for this was knowledge handed down in the infant class year by year. We might do well to think how good it is that children in our schools should be introduced at this point to the idea that the Germans are still our enemies. We ought, perhaps, to wonder at the effect of inculcating this idea. I am not suggesting that we should require the aeroplanes to be marked with Russian or Egyptian markings, or the markings of any nation. All I am saying is that this is something that we might think about and on the effects of which we might speculate.
We do not know what war toys are. The hon. Lady has not told us. Nor has she told us why she seeks to stop at war toys. I believe that if her Motion were consistently followed out, it would have to go much further. Legislation would have to be passed to outlaw the game of cowboys and Indians on the ground that it inculcated race hatreds. Golliwogs would have to be made illegal for the same reason. Cops and robbers would have to be made an illegal pastime on the ground that it glorified crime—at least, I hope that the Home Secretary would be moved to outlaw cops and robbers on that ground. What about Grimm's Fairy Tales? They contain plenty of sources of nightmare. Would they have to be ceremoniously burned in Trafalgar Square? What about that excellent game of "Monopoly"?

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Hear, hear.

Mr. Onslow: No doubt, there are hon. Members opposite who would seek to have it declared illegal on the ground that it fostered a premature interest in investment and capitalism and was undesirable on that account. All card games would have to be outlawed because they exposed children at a tender age to the existence of the laws of chance, and so to the fallacies of Socialist planning. The hon. Lady may think that I am joking. Perhaps in jest I may ask her if she thinks that
because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale.
Not in jest, however, I would go further. Taking the terms of the Motion and the spirit which could underlie it, I would say that it is a very dangerous Motion because it opens a door to legislation to control the right of an individual


and his children to think. We are all familiar with the words "Ban this, ban that." There are plenty of people who want to ban the freedom of a parent to spend his own money on the education of his children. I am appalled at the idea of our moving towards 1984 by banning toys of one kind or another. The hon. Lady said "Hear, hear" when I mentioned "Monopoly", so presumably by inference the supports the idea of banning any instructions in capitalism lest the citizen should find them dangerously subversive to her way of thinking. If we accepted the Motion, we could move, not simply towards something which cannot be done, but towards something which should not be done, towards the idea that the Government should seek to control and direct, even more than they do now, the environment in which we live and the games and thoughts we are allowed to have.
I regard this debate as a sad but revealing waste of time. The House would do much better to move on to the Motion entitled, "Shortage of Teachers (Scotland)" in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), because that is something for which the Government are responsible and, if it were remedied, it might even go some way towards achieving the purpose which the hon. Lady seems to believe she can achieve with her Motion.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: I feel privileged to follow the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), because, although in some respects I agree with some of the conclusions he has drawn from the Motion, in other respects I profoundly disagree with him. The Motion brings again to our minds the problems and horror of war. I do not think we serve the best interests of our constituents or of the nation if we try to push this matter under the carpet and forget about it and do not apply ourselves to what is the major problem of this age and what has been the major problem of almost any age throughout the length of written history.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) was right to refer to a sense of world community, a concept which was also

referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman spoke, because in trying to introduce ideas of world government we are trying to put an end to the possibility of war.
My hon. Friend spoke briefly about the present lack of sensitivity to horror and death. Up to the middle of the 19th century, because death was around all the time, there was an attitude of accustomedness to death. People were used to seeing others die of sickness. The expectation of life was very short. Then, because of the improvement in medical science, during the latter part of the last century and the first 25 years of this one people acquired a new sensitivity to suffering and death and for the first time became really aware of horror, suffering and death.
I believe that since the events of Hiroshima we have all become insentive also to the horrors of war, because war has reached a point where we can no longer understand the depth of the horror. It goes beyond feeling. I believe that my hon. Friend was right to table the Motion, because the point has been reached where we can no longer feel the depths of anguish at war, modern war weapons, and the facilities for making war.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the present-day lack of morals. She referred to the dishonesty of a boy who even stole his girl friend's money. This is due to the lack of religion, to the failure of religion, to the fact that the State religion which we have has endorsed and supported war, that organised religion, as we understand it, is no longer viable and people are no longer prepared to accept it. Yet everyone needs a religion. We need something beyond ourselves. We need a belief in god. Because of the lack of this in our lives, because religion has not, perhaps, kept up with the age, because it has not been prepared to stand fast on the question of war and peace, this has led to a lack of good morals, to an increase in dishonesty. Too often morality is spoken of in terms of sexual morality. It is not sexual morality. It is dishonesty that pervades this age. There is a shortage of people who speak their minds and who are straight and honest.
In many ways I support the Motion, but I believe that the hon. Member for Woking touched on the kernel of the


question. In 1859 John Stuart Mill wrote his "Essay on Liberty". The question of the extent to which Parliament, although sovereign, should limit its own sovereignty, arises. I believe in the repeal of the Act of Parliament which made homosexual acts between adult males illegal because I do not believe that Parliament has the right to interfere with people's behaviour in private. For the same reason, I do not believe that we should legislate to prevent people from having abortions if they wish to do so. This is not a field in which Parliament should interfere.
Likewise, because of what Mill said in his "Essay on Liberty", I believe that Parliament has no right to use its sovereignty, its censorship, to interfere in this way with the rights of ordinary people, however good the motives may appear to my hon. Friend to be. I believe that she has the right motive, but I agree with the hon. Member for Woking that it is a very dangerous situation when one accepts that Parliament should use its sovereignty to interfere with the rights and liberties of people in the pursuit of their ordinary, everyday life.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: It is precisely because I do not believe that children have a choice that I have introduced the Motion. I think that children are being brainwashed. I can give my hon. Friend chapter and verse—he can see it any time he likes in horror comics—of the kind of advertising which is being put out on all the mass media. This is exactly my point. Children do not have a free choice.

Mr. Parkyn: I believe that the cure would be worse than the disease. Once such a cure was embarked upon, no government would know where to stop. This is why I oppose all forms of censorship, because it is a very difficult line to take. I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether there is any way in which this could be prevented from going on interminably, a process of restricting and restricting all along the line. If we are to ban war, which is what all hon. Members want, I believe that we should publicise the problems of war; we should discuss the matter more and more and not sweep it under the carpet. We should consider how war could be banned. These are massive problems. I am glad that we have a Minister

for Disarmament. I only wish that he would do something to show us that the Government intend to go ahead seriously and give the world a lead in disarmament.
In the final analysis it is not a question of being opposed to violence. Are we opposed to violence, or are we opposed to violence when it is used by a sovereign State for the ends of that State? If we believe in a world government, with some kind of world peacekeeping force, and some kind of world law and order, surely we must also accept the minimal use of force, whatever that may mean, the right to use force for maintaining those international laws on behalf of all the countries of the world? When one speaks of minimal force, one raises the difficult moral problem of the difference between using a bow and arrow and a hydrogen bomb. I think that it would be outside the terms of the Motion to get involved in the theological argument, of different degrees of morality in the use of force.
If we wish to ban war, I do not think that we can do it by restricting the sale of war toys, or censoring books. Grimms' Fairy Tales have been mentioned. I do not believe that it can be done in this way. I believe that we will ban war by working towards establishing a world government, with a world peace-keeping force, and world law and order maintained on our behalf by this world force.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I not not think that this Motion ought to go completely unanswered from the Front Bench on this side of the House.
I start by saying that one of the few things in this world which I would ban, that is prohibit by law, is the word "ban", which is the excuse for much of the woolliest thinking to which we are subjected in this House. With great respect to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn), who talked about banning war, let us remember that we banned war in 1925, by the Kellogg Pact, and yet people have gone on fighting with the same enthusiasm ever since. One does not prevent a thing by banning it, and this is the first thing that needs to be said about the Motion.
I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) will not accuse me—or at least I hope she will not—of any personal dis-


courtesy towards herself, but there was an extraordinary contrast between the solemn thoughts with which she introduced the Motion and the extraordinary small brown mouse which emerged when we came to her practical proposals. She began with the horrible words, "This may be one of the last occasions which we have in this House to discuss violence before the third world war breaks out". That was pretty rough stuff, but what emerged? What was the solution? How are we to survive—by preventing our children from buying, and other people from selling them, war toys? I do not feel very much safer having heard the hon. Lady's proposals.
The hon. Lady seemed to think that she should have been replied to by the Minister for Disarmament. It would perhaps be a good thing if we could be sure that the Minister for Disarmament existed, or that he had any useful work to do, but whatever useful work he may have to do, it is not in the banning or prohibition of war toys. It is something very much more serious that he is about, I hope, if ever he does grace this House or take part in our discussions.
I hope that the hon. Lady will not think, either that I disregard or undervalue the need, as she puts it, of a sense of world community, or that I particularly relish the use or sale of some of the toy weapons which I have seen for sale in this country. I certainly would have no hesitation in buying my children a toy pistol with caps, or a set of Indian feathers and bows and arrows. But some of the toys that we see, like tommy guns and mills bombs, are disagreeably like the real thing in appearance, and I do not like them, but so far it has not occurred to me to prohibit them by law, and that is what the Motion is about.
I seriously ask the hon. Lady to consider what kind of scientific evidence she has which would stand up to examination that wars are caused, or even contributed to, by children using war toys. This is a more important question, not a rhetorical one, than appears at first sight, for reasons which I shall seek to develop. My impression is that we tend in this House to live in the pre-scientific age. The proposition that we ought to prohibit the sale of an article of any kind, whether it is a toy mills bomb or a

plastic doll, ought to be accompanied by some kind of scientific evidence over and above the individual's dislike of the article concerned.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: This is one of the reasons why I have raised the whole matter. I think that a Government Department should be concerned about the psychological effect of these toys and of the advertising of them. There is nobody here at the moment who is responsible for this aspect of the matter. This is the point that I am trying to make. In the United States, where they have been subjected to much more of this kind of advertising, and where the children have been subjected to considerably more brainwashing, they are beginning to get some scientific evidence on this. Why not some from Britain?

Mr. Hogg: The only point that I was seeking to make was that before the hon. Lady seeks to prohibit the sale or manufacture of an article she should have some scientific evidence to show that she will achieve her purpose. I question whether such scientific evidence can be found or exists.
I believe that wars are caused by adults and not by children. I may be wrong about this. It is possible that all wars in the world are caused by children, but I do not think they are. I think that they are caused by adults, and if I am asked why children play at soldiers, or why they play cowboys and Indians, or why they play cops and robbers, or even why they use a toy tommy gun, the reason is that they know that adults do it. A child in its play—and I think it is important to recognise this basic fact—in its world of fantasy, tends to reflect the world of adults as it believes it to be, sometimes rightly, and sometimes less rightly.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: How does one change the situation?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is right to ask how one changes the situation, but I suggest that we should start at the beginning and not at the wrong end. To get the right end of the stick is the important thing. We will not prevent wars by stopping children playing at soldiers, although we would probably stop children playing at soldiers if we prevented wars. The thing to do is to get the right relationship between cause and effect.
This Motion—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about some of its other implications, and I shall come to them—reflects a common attitude of mind towards children and education which I have seen again and again, in the campaign against smoking, in the campaign against a great many other things, drink, gambling, war, and a lot of very serious adult vices.
Because we cannot control adults, and perhaps do not even control ourselves, our first reaction is to take it out of the children. Because we drink and smoke too much, because we gamble and because we are greedy of money, we say, "Let us take it out of our children." Saying to my children, "Do not do as I do but do as I say", is one of the first lapses which, as an experienced parent, I am only too conscious of committing. But when we introduce this idea into legislation we are perilously near to nonsense. Children will catch the habits of their elders. It is not, on the whole, true that elders and adults learn the vices of their children.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that children should be allowed to see every play that adults see?

Mr. Hogg: Far from it. I am only making a general comment. I have said again and again in this House—and I have said it to the Home Secretary—on the question of the banning of obscene publications, that just as good books do good to adults and children so bad books do bad to adults and children. I am far from being an apostle of the permissive society. But let us get our priorities right. Let us not think that we shall abolish World War III by banning toys for children, because we shall not.
The second point I want to make is somewhat similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. The idea that one should prohibit by law some activities which adults indulge in and of which we do not approve is one that, as the hon. Member for Bedford has said, we should approach with a good deal of caution. We should be especially wary of the temptation, having failed to take it out of the children, to say, "Let us take it out of the manufacturer"—that wicked man who makes money out

of our vices and sells us things that we ought not to want to buy.
This, again, is a perverted sense of logic. I agree—I am not arguing for the permissive society—that cigarette smoking is the cause of lung cancer. I am against the sale of a host of things of which I do not approve because they are dangerous or wicked. On the other hand, we ought to approach with a good deal of caution the idea that because we smoke too much we must punish the man who sells tobacco because it is one which is sound neither in morality nor jurisprudence.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If cigarette smoking affects children, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of allowing smoking in schools?

Mr. Hogg: Far from it. I have urged again and again, both as regards adults and children—and to this extent I make no difference between the two—that it should be recognised that cigarette smoking causes cancer and that if a parent loves his children he is a fool if he smokes cigarettes himself. If he smokes 20 or 30 cigarettes a day it is idiotic for him to tell his child's schoolmaster to forbid his child to smoke in school, because the first thing that his child does when he gets into a bush is to light a cigarette, like his daddy or mummy. Let us have a little less humbug in our approach to childhood and legislation.
I return to the question of banning war toys because we do not want a war. Having failed to take it out of the child and then failed to take it out of the manufacturer, we adopt the pathetic belief that if we pass a law against it it will not happen. This is not true. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the child will make his own war toys. He will take a stick, and in his childish fancy it will become a gun, a rocket or an atom bomb—because the child needs only the smallest possible incitement to his imagination to reflect in his play the activity which he believes, rightly or wrongly, to be the activity of the adult world. We shall achieve nothing if we impose this prohibition.
I have only two other points to make, and they are both fairly rough. First, we sat up all last Thursday discussing an important piece of social legislation, and


perhaps we shall sit up all night tonight discussing another important piece of legislation, it having been said that we had no time at all to discuss these matters except between the hours of midnight and nine o'clock in the morning. Here we are, discussing solemnly a proposal to ban toy soldiers by law.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It must be accepted that both those issues came in private Members' time. We should remember that this debate is also taking place in private Members' time. We may not always agree with the choice of subjects discussed in private Members' time, but we should not seek to take away the chance to discuss them.

Mr. Hogg: I am not seeking to prevent the use of private Members' time, but I would remind the hon. Lady of something that I heard in the House in 1945, when Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, took away private Members' time. One of my hon. Friends—we were in Opposition then, also—said that he did not think much of private Members' time because some people, as a result of the ballot, did not know what to do with it while others—he added, darkly—knew only too well. This is one of the latter occasions.

5.7 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) should have put down this Private Member's Motion, because apart from anything else—her sincerity needs no congratulation—she has given us a marvellous chance to ride more personal hobby horses than we have been given by any other debate for months. She has given us a chance to discuss a topic that does not receive sufficient consideration, and which involves not the day-to-day mechanics of governing our country but the sort of values we want our country to have.
I am therefore sorry that I cannot give the Motion my wholehearted support. One of my difficulties is that I believe that for the best of reasons my hon. Friend has come to the worst conclusions. She has told us that little girls do not play with war toys, but play with things like dolls' houses. My experience is that the

female is not only tougher but far more aggressive and, on occasions, far more effective than the male. This cannot necessarily be said to have developed from a certain amount of conditioning by playing with toy soldiers. My mother alleges that at five I got a great deal more fun out of playing with a rough and dirty group of boys than from anything else. A child tends to regard as a toy an empty medicine tin or a whole lot of muddy water. What we are discussing today are the things purchased by fond aunts and uncles at Christmas time, which usually do not last for more than 48 hours anyway.
I was fascinated to hear the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) say that he would be quite pleased to buy a gun that fired caps for his children. I should be interested to hear the views of his wife before I took that remark seriously. My objection is that the noise that these guns create, driving me absolutely mad, and not to any effect they may have on my moral fibre.

Mr. Hogg: My wife thinks exactly the same as I; she dislikes the noise but likes the children to enjoy themselves.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps she is well-conditioned to noise, having been married to a politician for some time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham has forgotten that between the manufacturer and the child is that extraordinary creature, the parent. The parent has some responsibility not only over what his child plays with, but also over its environment and over what it reads. One of the first times that I realised this—I must be getting elderly—was when I lectured another generation about what I considered they were doing wrong. One of our constant mistakes is to lump generations together, saying that a certain generation has different values from ours, is more subject to pressures and more interested in a permissive society, but I sometimes feel that the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to whom I talk are much more sensible than my generation. They are far more politically conscious and they are open to persuasion. They ask


straight questions and accept straight answers. If that had been done more often in the past, our society would be far better today.
Parents must consider their children's environment. It is difficult to answer honestly on what a moral judgment is. One may give small boys guns and forts, but is one giving them the sort of standards by which they can judge everyday life, which will enable them to sort out the difference between licence and freedom and to face up honestly to a society which puts many pressures on them?
One of the nicest things that has happened to me since I came to the House was meeting a very sad little Australian boy on the doorstep one very rainy winter morning with his parents who had not been able to see the Changing of the Guard and who now wanted to see the Houses of Parliament. I showed him round these august premises and he was singularly unimpressed. I showed him the House of Commons and the House of Lords and told him many, probably grossly inaccurate, stories about the history of Parliament, and he was interested only when we reached the painted hall at the other side of the House of Lords, where there are large set-pieces. With great interest, he inspected "The Death of Nelson" and said, "Coo, look, Mum—blood!" I thought that, when he went home, he would refer to his visit to the Houses of Parliament and say that he saw Nelson with blood all down his side.
This is what children are interested in. They will also be interested in horror comics and in people flying through balsa wood frames on television. I am not sure that they connect these things with real life. They read Grimm's Fairy Tales about giants eating people and dreadful things happening to their favourite heroes, but in their minds it has nothing to do with real life.
This happens with adults. One of my husband's objections to my selection of television programmes is that I choose what he regards as an almighty amount of "guff". This is because I am sanguine about actors being knocked 20 feet and carrying on with their lines quite unaffected, whereas I was unable to look at the documentary on Culodden because it had happened to real people and I identified myself with them.
In talking about banning toys, we are using the wrong methods to reach the wrong ends. We should consider the values which we give our children, which some call Christianity, though hon. Members on this side would call it Socialism. I was brought up by a very tough parent who eternally threatened my brother and me with the most dreadful physical punishments, which we were convinced he would never carry out. One of my most terrible realisations, having fought happily with him for well over 30 years, was that I could no longer fight with him when a stroke deprived him of the power of speech.
We must prevent war, but we should accept our aggressive tendencies. A small boy who appears beautifully clean and with his socks pulled up makes me eminently suspicious. A boy with his hat round the wrong way and his shirt torn after the most terrible battles may have been working out many inhibitions but will probably be a fairly healthy human being.
I thank my hon. Friend for her choice of subject, but I hope that the Motion will not be accepted.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Although I had to leave before the end of her speech, I thought that, in talking of children being brainwashed by toys, the hon. Lady the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) was living in a world of make-believe, exceeding that of the children themselves. When children play at soldiers, the conception of life and death does not arise. When they say, "Bang, bang, you're dead," and the other child falls down, they know that he will get up in a moment and that next time it will be his turn. This is a world of fantasy with no idea of death or violence.
A child may have a twig shaped like a rifle, a tommy-gun or a pistol, he may have a nail driven through two pieces of wood as a sword or he may have a water pistol. These children are reliving the lives of heroes of history and literature. They might be acting out the part of Field Marshal Montgomery at Alamein or the exploits of a Battle of Britain pilot shooting down Germans. They may be knights in shining armour rescuing damsels in distress from an evil man, or spies dying for their country, but throughout


they are identifying with heroes whom they have been taught are right and are fighting wrong.
Therefore, there is nothing intrinsically evil in their play. We are talking of the very young. The youths who are most inclined to violence do not play with toys, which are toys of the imagination for the very young. I would be much more concerned with debating the subject of teenage boys with airguns shooting animals and birds and probably leaving them to die, than these toys. I am astonished that the people who often cry about banning war toys and war itself are the first to demand licence in entertainment and no censorship, and who say that it is perfectly acceptable for the worst of violence, perversion and thuggery to be portrayed on television for children to see.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: I do not think that the hon. Member should group me with those who are saying those things. He has not the slightest idea of what my views are on that matter.

Mr. Goodhew: I admit that at once. I was not saying that this applies to the hon. Lady, but that the very people who usually take the approach which she has put to the House this afternoon are those who say that there should be licence in the world of entertainment. If there is one thing that does harm to the young it is the appearance of violence, perversion and other terrible things on television and on films, and so on. This affects many who have passed from childhood to their formative years and they are very much impressed by it.
I would sooner that we were talking about the effect of various entertainments on teenagers than about toys which are part of make-believe games of the very young. If we are to talk about the sense of world community, this is something which the example of grown-ups can teach. When we have a situation in which there is such intolerance as to suggest that one nation should constantly be trying to interfere in the internal domestic affairs of others—which is what we find very often in the very body which is supposed to bring a world community about, the United Nations—it is there that we have to look for the lessons which need to be taught to the young.
I hope that we might decide that the

subject we are discussing is not a real threat to the young of this country, and that we might try to look in other directions if we want them to grow up as peace-loving people.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The trouble about narrowly drawn Motions is that they tend to encourage wide-flung speeches. This I think an inevitable tendency. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) will feel able to withdraw her Motion at the end of this debate, but it has served a useful purpose. It is not very often that the House has an opportunity to speculate upon the nature of the society in which we live. Therefore, my hon. Friend should not feel discouraged if she has been the recipient of some slight rebuffs in the debate. It has served a useful purpose, although the Motion is not one I find myself able fully to support.
The debate has drawn attention to the fact that one man's freedom is another's captivity. It is the sort of squabble we have going on continually in the world, the fight between the greed society and the slave society, or, to lift it up one, the fight between freedom and order. It can be seen as a fight for freedom against slavery. Communists would see it as a fight between greed and the ordered society. It may be said that society is only free if it is restrictive.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: The point I tried to make following on John Stuart Mill concerned the question of what a person does in his private life. Obviously, there must be restrictions and control of society. This is the main function of Parliament, the maintenance of law and order.

Mr. Jenkins: I take the point made by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend said that we have to be careful when we try to impose restrictions. I am a member of a committee which has recently recommended the removal of censorship or pre-censorship on the theatre. So the cap of the hon. Member for St. Albans was wearing fits quite firmly on my head, and I am proud of it.
The real problem we face has been hardly touched on. It is that we are living in a new sort of society in which we cannot afford violence any more. Until now we have been able to get


away with it. We only narrowly got away with it in the last world war. I took the view at that time that it was right to take up arms on that occasion because I felt that the evil we faced was greater than the things we would face through not combatting it. We are past that phase. Now war and violence itself have become the greatest evils because we are in danger of destroying the very world in which we live.
In this situation we face something entirely new. Therefore, my hon. Friend was not entirely amiss when she said that in such a dangerous society anything which inculcates or accustoms in the young the idea of acceptance of violence is something which we should worry about. One of the characteristics of Communist societies which I find welcome in an ordered system of society is that all their children's toys are the sort of things which would please my hon. Friend and not what we get in the West. I think the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) took the matter to the other degree when he suggested that it was solely a case of the adult setting an example to the young. He was taking the matter too far in the opposite direction. It is a case of the chicken and the egg.
The sort of society in which we live encourages the production and distribution of not only such things as war toys but of violence on television as a way of life. This is disquieting because, as we become more technically expertise in the art of destroying ourselves, so we need to become less violent in our approach to problems, not more so. If going along together with our technical ability to destroy ourselves there is acceptance of violence, the world is bound ultimately to reach that point which none of us wants to reach but which we are all worried about and want to avoid. This debate has served a useful purpose, but I do not think that anyone has come up with the answer to these major problems. If we pay attention to the direction in which we are going, it may be that arising from this Motion on another occasion we shall have more to say about that.
I think that my hon. Friend's time perspective is perhaps too optimistic. In effect, she says that if we banned war toys now, in 20 years or more we would

have a generation which, deprived of that stimulus, would be extremely pacific. I have some doubts about that. I am worried about the next 20 years. Even if this were applied and proved to be the solution, which I doubt, I am afraid that it would be too late. It is we who have the responsibility, we and the immediately succeeding generation. This generation, we ourselves, have to guide the world through the next 10 or 15 years, which is a very dangerous period as we move in the nuclear age towards a world order. It is for us, in spite of our shortcomings, so to conduct ourselves that we succeed in bringing mankind through the time of extreme peril which is before us.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In this short debate the charge has frequently been made that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) is an optimist. I think that she is. She was certainly very optimistic in believing that a Government whose policy is to export as many arms as possible would go on exporting arms but would ban toy arms.
The Government's policy is to export tanks, aeroplanes, bombers, poison gas—everything that can bring in a profit. That is the Government's policy, supported by the Opposition. We employ an arms salesman, not to sell toys but to sell real armaments. We have been selling armaments, I believe, to both sides involved in the war in the Middle East. Atheists have been selling arms to the Muslims and Christian countries have been engaged in making profits out of selling arms to both Christians and Mohammedans. As long as we accept the export of arms, and as long as any Government continue such a policy. I do not see how we can agree to put a ban on toys. A manufacturer of toy tanks might well say, "It is not clear to me why you put a ban on my toys when you export a Chieftain tank to Egypt for £100,000". As long as we are manufacturing and exporting arms, it would not be logical for the Government to put a ban on the export of toys.
I have no objection to the fact that my hon. Friend is embarrassing the Government. That is why the Government


are here. But it puts the Government in an impossible position when she asks, "Where is the Minister for Rearmament?" The Minister for Rearmament has become a joke.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend means the Minister for Disarmament.

Mr. Hughes: It is all so mixed up that we do not know what he is. The Minister for Disarmament is regarded as the least effective Member of the Government. It is most appropriate that we have here a Minister from the Board of Trade who really does something, if it is only to supply advance factories to mining constituencies, but who at any rate is a Minister with some influence on Government policy.
The Government cannot possibly take up the proposal in the Motion and must pour cold water on it. Had I been fortunate in winning the Ballot, I should have sought not to ban toys but to ban weapons, and in this respect I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham has missed a magnificent opportunity.
I was surprised at some of the revolutionary implications in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). He is apparently in favour of a libertarian régime for children. So am I. I agree with A. S. Neil. But that is not the sort of thing that we usually expect from Eton. When I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether his children were to have all this freedom and to see all these plays and films, he immediately drew back into his shell. Nor was he very convincing on the subject of smoking. It certainly stirred up thought as to how far we are in favour of children playing with the kind of toys that they like. I am in favour of children playing with any kind of toys, and I am also in favour of adults and Governments setting them an example.
When we ban the bomb and the bomber, and the napalm bomb which burns the villages in Vietnam, and when we stop making money out of sending arms to Jews and Arabs alike, then is the time to tell children, "You must not play with these awful little replicas of the things we use."

Question put and negatived.

SCOTLAND (TEACHER SHORTAGE)

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move,
That this House urges the Government to introduce, as a matter of urgency, measures to increase the supply of teachers in Scotland and to secure a more equitable distribution, especially in areas suffering from part-time education.
I hope that at least this Motion will not attract some of the comments made about the previous Motion. Certainly, it should not attract the comment of being the most muddled and misconceived Motion ever placed on the Order Paper. I do not know whether the debate will be as entertaining as was the last debate. I always like listening to a philosophical knock-about by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).
This is a serious subject which certainly needs to be discussed, though its discussion presents me with certain difficulties which I regret. It is a subject of national concern and yet, unfortunately, I can approach it on the basis of its being a constiuency problem, for the simple reason that the worst teacher shortage, not just in Scotland but in the United Kingdom, exists in my constituency.
It also presents a difficulty in that one of my shortcomings is that I am too reasonable. At least, I like to think that I am. I am tested to talk in the exaggerated language common to Parliamentarians—language which is used in the hope that by using it we might get a little action. I am also inhibited in that I have a personal regard for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that inhibition is increased by the fact that when everybody else is kicking him I have not the heart to do it.
There are two aspects of teacher shortage that I should like to consider. One is short-term—and this is the point which I mainly want to raise—and the other is long-term. Both problems have to be overcome. In the short-term, there is a difference in the problem as it affects primary and secondary education. May I refer hon. Members to HANSARD of 28th June when, in reply to my Question, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that


at mid-June, 3,189 children were in receipt of part-time education, of whom 1,949 were primary children, and all of to primary children were in Glasgow. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1967; Vol. 479, c. 491.] I will come to the secondary school children later.
It seems to me that the part-time education of primary children over the past year—which is the period which gives weight to the argument—has been a Glasgow problem. Unfortunately it is only a Glasgow problem. St. Andrew's House reveals it as a Glasgow problem. But in Glasgow itself it is broken down into certain areas, and I have the misfortune to represent the area with the worst teacher shortage. The figures themselves do not illustrate all the problems. For example, the E.I.S. says that in the east side of the city—not a very defined geographical description—1,340 pupils were receiving part-time education, which means that 80 per cent. of the children in Glasgow in receipt of part-time education are in the east end—a loose description. In addition, 217 teachers had left since January, 1966. It is not just the statistics that prove the case.
If we examine what takes place in one primary school in this bad area, it might illustrate the point that I am making. This is a typical new primary school with fewer than 1,000 pupils; there are 27 classes, and 26 teachers. On the face of it, that seems quite reasonable, but during the seven years that this school has been in existence—and, as I say, it is a fairly typical school in the area—there have been 120 changes in the staff. This is positively frightening.
Bad enough as they are, the statistics conceal the damage which is being done in the under-privileged areas, for almost half of the staff at present in the school are probationers in their first year. We are delighted to have probationers; they are excellent girls; but it is hardly fair that of a staff of from 25 to 30 teachers half should be apprentices. Obviously, they are a lot better than not having teachers at all. They do excellent work, and some of them are fine girls, but this seems to be an aspect of the matter which has not been examined properly. In an area like this it is understandable.
I do not want to make any comment about the recent half-day strike, or the fact that the E.I.S. is paying three guineas to

each of its members who were out on strike. No wonder that one of the teachers was prompted to say that this was a crazy set-up—that she should be getting more in strike pay for half a day than she got in salary for a full day's work. But this is the kind of absurd situation we get into. Unfortunately, that teacher has emigrated to Canada. I ought to add that on this matter I have been quoting only from the Press.
However, we seem to have established the fact that there is a shortage of teachers, and that there is part-time education, and underlying all this there is the very serious problem of the damage which can be done to the children because of the frequent changes in staff and because of the inexperience of the staff. So I think that a case has been established for some kind of special action in primary schools, especially as the problem is narrowed down to the City of Glasgow and to certain parts of Glasgow.
What about the position in secondary schools? I know that there are dangers in quoting anything which appears in the Press—and it is better that I should say that instead of my right hon. Friend's having always to say it; but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is quoted as saying that in spite of difficulties, Glasgow is not the worst staffed authority in Scotland. I have already qualified that by admitting the dangers of quoting from the Press, and especially reports about such an unpopular figure as the Secretary of State for Scotland happens to be, but, nevertheless, I would like him to clear up this point, because since there is no part-time education in primary schools outside Glasgow, he obviously must have been referring to secondary education.
There are only three authorities in the whole of Scotland—in June of this year—which have part-time education in secondary schools. I would certainly urge that my right hon. Friend should examine the figures in greater detail, because it seems to me that in Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire, which are the other two authorities referred to, the problem is like Glasgow's, arising in particular areas, particular schools. The Roman Catholic schools, I think, are badly hit in Dunbartonshire and in Renfrewshire. Renfrewshire is represented most adequately at the Scottish Office


through members of the Government, and, therefore, I do not need to plead the case for Renfrewshire, or for Dunbartonshire, but I would certainly like to see greater examination in detail of the secondary schools which are suffering from teacher shortage to find out if we know the reasons for the shortage in those areas. It is complicated because, obviously, some of the other authorities will have junior secondaries, and this does not apply to the area I am dealing with. Therefore, as I say, I think that there is a need for a bit more examination into the causes of the problem. The damage in secondary schools is just as great.
Again, in looking at the figures of how many children are suffering from part-time education, we are not even getting at the problem, because in the secondary schools which are in the most difficult position at the moment over part-time education there are the greatest number of uncertificated teachers. Many of these uncertificated teachers are good teachers, and I would go so far as to say that some of them are better than the certificated ones. I can say things which it would be indiscreet for the Secretary of State to say. I am not condemning all the uncertificated teachers. I am merely saying that if it is true, as teachers claim, that uncertificated teachers are a menace—which is doubtful, in these general terms—we need to examine those schools in those areas, because it is not only a question of part-time education, but of something much more damaging, as can he shown in primary education.
As I have said, I am a very reasonable person, and I recognise that the Secretary of State has difficulties, not the least of which are the teachers' organisations themselves. I think that it is quite pointless to raise a subject like this unless one makes some reference to the teachers' organisations. They are in some ways a menace. It seems incredible that there should be more demarcation lines drawn in this profession than in any other single trade or profession. It seems to me a tragedy that educated and intelligent people should have this proliferation of teachers' organisations each claiming to represent its own particular group. This is one of the headaches.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend. It prevents us, I think, from making the

progress which is needed in education in Scotland, because we are always having to deal—obviously, I am not saying we should not—with a situation where one body is trying to out-vote or out-play another. It is a very unreal situation, in which to try to get to terms and to arrange discussions and solutions in co-operation, when one teachers' body is constantly having to look over its shoulder to see whether a rival body has outbid or out-gunned it in terms of popular support.
I think that I should go back to the subject of primary education and, in particular, to the Roberts Report. I certainly would like to pay a tribute to Dame Jean Roberts and the members of her Committee for the excellence of their Report. I do not think that anyone could criticise the practical approach which they have made to this problem. I should like to quote paragraph 71 of the Report, because this sums it up—and this is why I do not want to be too critical of the Secretary of State. It says that
Our membership comprised a wide variety of knowledge and experience of educational matters, and we are not inexperienced in committee work. It is true to say, however, that few of us can recall having had to deal with such an intractable problem as that presented by our remit.
Having personal knowledge of the leader of that Committee, and knowing something of the problems which have been tackled by her on the local authority in the past, I think that that is saying something, and that most of us would recognise that this is a really difficult problem.
I do not think that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have anything at all to contribute to the subject in the light of their failures in the past and the rather half-baked schemes which were produced in an attempt to tackle this problem.
What is it that I ask my right hon. Friend to do? First of all, it is criminal for those of us who believe in some degree of social justice to allow schools to be over-staffed when other schools are under-staffed and I should like to know whether some of these over-staffed areas and schools have been identified. We know that there has been an examination of areas where there is staff shortage in primary and secondary schools, and a shortage of uncertificated teachers.
A practical suggestion would be for the training colleges to show a greater interest in sending out students, not to fill teaching plates but to get training in the schools, but it must be remembered that if a school at present under-staffed does not have a good department in which students can be trained it will not get the students from the training colleges. I believe that a bit of interest shown by the Scottish Office, in conjunction with the training colleges and the schools themselves, in a co-operative approach would produce results.
It is known that many students go back after qualifying to the schools where they received their training, even though the schools may be some distance from their homes, because they like the schools, the staff, and so on. That might make a practical contribution to the solution of the problem. Something like the Roberts Report's recommendation should be introduced, if only on a trial basis and for a limited period.
I am rather surprised at the official attitude to travelling expenses. I know that up to now there has been a genuine doubt whether local authorities could pay teachers' travelling expenses. In reply to a Question that I put down, the Secretary of State said that he understood that some authorities were paying expenses. Does that reply mean that the Secretary of State does not have to give approval, and, if he does not have to give approval, that it does not attract grant? From some hon. Members' comments, it would seem that Glasgow did not realise the position. There is an element of confusion on this subject that should be cleared up.
I would be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary would visit the east end of the city to examine conditions in detail. Personal contact is invaluable. I do not minimise the tremendous amount of work done by this Government for education, or the difficulties they have faced, but I hope that I will not just be told that there is an increase in the number of teachers coming out of the training colleges and a vast increase in the number of students. I recognise that, but I do not think that the urgency of the problem in the difficult areas has been communicated to the

Government. Despite the Government's efforts, the position is no better than it was two and a half years ago.
As I say, I discount any political capital that any hon. Member opposite may try to make out of the position. A tremendous amount of work has been done in general, but my complaint is that the benefits have not yet reached Easterhouse. I realise the difficulties there are at this time in asking for a bonus for certain teachers or schools in certain areas. The prices and incomes policy has been a complication, to put it no higher, and I dare say that negotiations for the salaries of English teachers is a complication, to put it no higher.
Nevertheless, I beg my right hon. Friend at least to give me some encouragement that some kind of policy will be announced in the near future that will give some satisfaction to teachers and parents alike in those areas that face such a very difficult problem.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I am sure that all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will be very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has exploited his good fortune in the Ballot to introduce this subject for debate. He has dealt largely with the short-term problem and has quoted figures that I do not for a moment dispute. Whether or not the case has been stated in terms that might give offence in some quarters, there is no doubt about the urgency of the problem.
Making all allowance for the steps that the Government have already taken, and which are set out in greater detail in the 1966 Report, something fundamental still requires to be done, and I want to address my remarks to that part of the Motion which calls
… attention to the shortage of teachers in Scotland; and … urges the Government to introduce … measures to increase the supply of teachers in Scotland …
Reference has been made somewhere to the fact that because of the increased number of teachers that have been coming from the training colleges for the last few years, demand and supply of teachers in primary schools will probably be equal in about 1968–69.
But there is the other problem of the raising of the school-leaving age to 16. That announcement was made by the previous Administration in January, 1964—some months before the General Election, but I make no point about that. They made the decision, and this Government have endorsed that decision not once or twice but three or four times, and despite the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend, I hope that that decision will be reaffirmed, because the country as a whole will pay less of a penalty if the age is raised than if it is postponed once more. Some of us recall the doubts and hesitations about the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 after the First World War and the increasing objections to raising the age now. I suppose that similar objections were made before the introduction of the Education Act, 1870.
My starting point is paragraph 11 of the valuable Report on Measures to Improve the Supply of Teachers in Scotland. It was produced by the Knox Committee in 1959. It contained various recommendations to the last Conservative Government—and I do not make a party point here. Those recommendations were valuable and some of the minor ones were accepted. But two of the principal ones were not and I want to return to them because, as a matter of urgency, they should be put into effect.
Paragraph 11 did not merely refer to recruiting a certain number of teachers. It used the words:
Although in our recommendations we are primarily concerned with the problems of the next ten years,"—
I remind the House that this was in 1959—
we consider that, since major educational advances are still to be made, none of our recommendations will lead to any danger of over-supply even in the more distant future.
I have tried to estimate the number of teachers who will be needed by a certain time. The stark fact is that our society will go on needing an increasing number of teachers. The Knox Committee estimated that, even with no major change in policy, with all vacancies filled, oversized classes eliminated and no uncertified teachers employed, we would in 1961 need 3,000 teachers. That number has increased by this time and, of course the school-leaving age is to be raised.
The Government have repeatedly reaffirmed their intention to raise the school-leaving age and it is thought that, by 1970, to meet that fact alone, 4,000 teachers will be needed and that the total figure needed then will be about 6,000 teachers. Despite these figures, I do not think that the situation is quite as bad as would appear. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State say:
I do not under-estimate difficulties, particularly over the supply of teachers, but the Government are making every effort to ensure that the provisions made by education authorities are adequate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 1287.]
It is not generally known that the birthrate in Scotland is increasing. It is higher than in most other European countries. So the growth in the school population, coupled with the redistribution of people into new towns and overspill areas, is adding to the problems of accommodation. Indeed, it is adding to the problem of the maldistribution of teachers in Glasgow itself.
I understand that the Government have already made it possible, with the consent and agreement of the teachers, for the admission of men to college diploma courses, in the same way as has hitherto applied to women, in the training colleges. I welcome that proposal, but it is not the whole solution. I hope that there will be a continuous sifting of such entrants to the training colleges for possible applicants and entrants to the universities themselves.
The expansion of training colleges is going on. To be fair, some of this began under the last Conservative Government, but a major capital programme has been entered into by the present Government. There is the expansion of facilities at the central institutions and an intensification of the special recruitment scheme. I sometimes wonder what the position would have been if that scheme had not been undertaken, for it has made it possible for thousands of people to go into teaching from other walks of life.
I come now to the two major recommendations of the Knox Committee, to which I have already referred. The first, which is growing in importance, was that an allowance should be made to men graduates coming from universities and


entering the training colleges. When, graduates from universities go into industry and other walks of life, including Government Departments, they become immediately employable, and I believe that such applicants for teaching ought to be treated on the same basis.
We are delighted to hear of the experiment to be carried out by Stirling University, in which it is endeavouring to combine the academic training necessary for graduates with teacher-training, which, at the moment, lasts for a year. It is trying to telescope the two and make the overall period shorter by six months. We shall watch that experiment with great interest.
I wonder why teaching is selected as probably the only case where a graduate coming from a university and going into teacher-training for a year does not receive an allowance. Why should not education authorities be encouraged to make an allowance so that the total pool of teachers may be increased? With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not hold the view that the proposed allowance of £100 will add one teacher to the pool. All it will do—and I know that this is my hon. Friend's immediate problem—is to attract people from the surrounding areas of Glasgow, probably leaving them short. Indeed, it may give rise to internal dissension among teachers within Glasgow itself. Information from some of those I have talked to about it is that not all teachers would welcome that proposal.
If we are to have money allocated for this alleviation and that, it would be better to keep it together and use it for a really purposive move, such as the next proposal to which I now come. This is the question of teachers who have retired. The Knox Committee proposed that teachers who retire should continue to receive full pension with full salary if they chose to go on teaching. After all, why not?
A teacher can leave teaching and go into other public bodies and corporations and still receive his full pension as well as his new salary. He can go to the electricity board or the gas board or into private industry and keep his pension. The only thing he cannot do without sacrificing his pension is to continue in teaching where, after his years of experience and training, he is able to do so good a job.
A teacher on retirement can leave his elementary or primary school and enter a private school and still receive his pension as well as a salary. The converse is also true. A man who comes out of the Services with a small pension, and is qualified to be or trained as a teacher, can retain his full Service pension as well as the salary as a teacher.
It is said that this would vitiate a great principle. I do not know what the principle is, but it is certainly not logical. The problem is of such great urgency that I would be delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend what other reason can be advanced against this proposal. During the war policemen who had retired and were out in other fields, as a matter of great national emergency, were asked to resume their jobs. They did so and received their salary and pension.
I cannot understand why, in this grave emergency, we cannot have the position re-examined with a view to doing something about it and accepting not an ill-thought-out proposal or suggestion made from these benches, but from the angle of the recommendations of the Knox Committee made up, as it is, of people not only in the profession but outsiders. I know that these two proposals are long-term, but the overall cost of re-enlisting such teachers who are there already would be less than some of the proposals which are being canvassed elsewhere.
I apologise for speaking at such length, but I should like my right hon. Friend to give us his views. I hope that he will be able to say, first, whether further consideration has been or will be given to the re-enlistment of teachers who are retiring and, secondly, the introduction of a grant to graduates who enter the training colleges.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) who introduced this debate, because the subject is one of very grave concern to all in Scotland. He highlighted a situation of which no one in Scotland can be particularly proud, but, none the less, it is right that we should discuss it on the Floor of the


House in an effort to try to get, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has said, as many ideas as possible put forward on how to meet what is a very urgent situation.
Not knowing so well the area of Scotland of the hon. Member for Provan, I find it particularly worrying the more I hear that kind of situation described. In the light of the decision to raise the school-leaving age in 1970, one is inclined to think in terms of the number of extra teachers who will be required for the extra pupils at the age of 15 to 16. Very often we forget that the problem of teacher shortage is equally great at the primary school end of education.
This end of education is vital. This is the time when a child is starting school and it is first impressions at school in his first one or two years which will form his whole attitude towards education over the next 11 or 12 years of school life. To go to school for part of a day and to find a teacher changing perhaps after a week—I am one who believes very much in the good influence of a good teacher—is bound to create a most unsettling effect on any child entering school.
That is an effect which will not be erased, however good education later may be. The extent to which that child may benefit from education later can be severely limited by lack of proper education in those early and most formative years. I am glad that that particular aspect of teacher shortage was highlighted so well.
Moving to the question of secondary schools in relation to the raising of the school-leaving age in 1970–71, I am most concerned about one point which I raised in debate on education last summer in the Scottish Grand Committee. It concerns the teachers required for secondary schools who will be largely made up of graduates. To be ready for the raising of the school-leaving age and the increase in school population in 1970–71 a graduate would have to have entered university last October. Therefore, we have passed the critical year so far as the recruitment of students to enter university is concerned. If we are to have sufficient graduate teachers it means that they will have to come from other sectors of the teaching profession into the

secondary schools or they will have to be recruited graduates from outwith the profession at the present time.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he said that we have to adopt a far more practical approach. We have to get down to earth and look at where we can get the teachers from and look at practical and new ways, as the hon. Member for Maryhill said, of attracting them. In the Roberts Committee's Report we had this practical sensible approach. As the hon. Member for Provan said, many of the things recommended in the Roberts Committee's Report were precisely the things which it went out to do.
What makes it all the more astounding is that so much time has passed since that Committee reported and up to now the Government have not done one single thing to implement any of the recommendations. We appreciate that the Government have difficulties in persuading the profession to accept the different recommendations, but what concerns me is that in a situation of such tremendous urgency the Government seems to lack the will to overcome them.
I am sure that other hon. Members, in common with myself, received a circular from the Educational Institute of Scotland this morning in which it said that last autumn it accepted the Report in principle and that it had had discussions with the Secretary of State. I gather that on most major points there was complete agreement about the implementation of the Report. That being so, I find it even more extraordinary that the delay should be so long in the Government doing so little about it.
The special recruitment scheme is one thing which I think the Government could adopt on a much more practical approach. I had occasion last year, as the Under-Secretary knows, to raise the case of a friend of mine who wished to enter the teaching profession. It was his experience which highlighted for me that it is not as attractive as many of us think it is to enter the teaching profession from another profession or line of business late in life. My friend, who has family commitments, a house commitment, and so on, had to suffer a considerable drop in salary over a period of three years, because he chose to go to university to take a degree. It meant a considerable


financial sacrifice for himself and his family in order to answer one of the calls which his country was asking him to do.
What concerned me in that case was that it was not just himself who was having to make sacrifices, because he was doing something that he wanted to do, but the fall in income imposed a severe hardship on his wife, who had to manage the household and on his children who, obviously, were accustomed to a certain way of life. This is the kind of factor which the Government have to take into account in considering the practical effect on people and their way of life if they answer the call of Government and enter the teaching profession.
The kind of more practical approach which I should like to see is not simply related to allowances to people entering the profession under the Special Recruitment Scheme. Such allowances should not be attached just to matters like the number of children, the number of dependants, and so on, but related much more widely to the commitments which a potential recruit to the profession may have. The financial commitments of two men or women may be the same in terms of their dependants, but they may he quite different when one takes into account the fact that one is buying his house and paying off a mortgage while the other lives in a council house.
Another factor which should be considered is where a recruit lives and how far he has to travel. I know that allowances are made for travel, but there are many incidental expenses which are not taken into account in the Special Recruitment Scheme. I should like to see much more discretion given to the kind of allowances which can be made, because in that way a vast untapped source of potential recruits to the teaching profession could be created.
Apart from getting more teachers, it must be realised that men and women who have experience in other professions, in business and in industry, can bring to the teaching profession not only themselves as extra teachers to swell the total number, but a width of experience in other walks of life from which education generally and other teachers can benefit. In relation to the Special Recruitment Scheme, I think that this is

one sphere in which the Government could adopt a more practical and helpful approach if we are to get more teachers. As I said earlier, we have to look outside the teaching profession, beyond the students who are about to enter universities, if we are to get a sufficient number of teachers for 1970–71.
What concerns me over this matter of teacher shortage is, as I have said already, that the Government seem to lack any real sense of urgency in many ways. For example, in dealing with the Roberts Report, they show a weakness of will and a lack of determination to overcome some of the practical obstacles in answering the problem of teacher recruitment. It is fair to say that they were not so weak about non-graduate men being recruited to the teaching profession, and eventually they forced the hands of the teachers' organisations. That was a good thing, because it will help us to increase the numbers of teachers in Scotland.
That is one example of the Government holding out and showing a slightly greater sense of urgency than they have in other matters, but that example stands by itself. We need a great many more examples of the Government acting more quickly and with more determination. Only in that way have we any hope of answering the problem.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I take part in the debate because I have thought about this problem for a number of years. It is one of the most difficult ever to have faced Governments of both parties.
At one time I attempted to do some research on it with graduates leaving the university where I was teaching. I asked them to fill in a form saying which occupation they intended to enter, and if they did not intend to enter teaching I asked them to specify why not. I received a large number of interesting replies. When I came to analyse them, one basic fact stood out. It is that we are struggling in part against the ethos of our own society. We give tremendous prestige to people earning large salaries, those going into exciting jobs in research and in industry, and those in certain types of professions. The tremendous respect which we used to have for the school-master has declined to some extent.
I was depressed by the number of answers to my questionnaire which said in reply to the question asking the graduate's intended occupation, "Teaching, if nothing better offers". In a sense, this epitomises the problem for many people when we are struggling to change our values and to get back to the situation where those who look after and mould the minds of children receive the respect to which they are entitled, and certainly more respect than gentlemen who apply their minds to advertising techniques and commercial prosperity of that kind.
In moving his Motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said that we were facing two problems. Unfortunately, they became rather intertwined in his speech. The first problem is that of increasing the total number of available teachers. The second is the different one of the distribution of the pool of available teachers among the various education authorities in Scotland. The two problems must be distinguished, because it would be very easy to take measures to redistribute our teachers which might have the effect of reducing the total number available. I was disturbed at his suggestion about clamping down on over-staffed schools, in which he included schools where the ratio is reasonably good. If we did that, it might have the effect of reducing the total number of teachers in Scotland.
The problems should be dealt with separately, and that is why I welcome the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). He suggested that, first of all, we should increase the number of teachers. The difficulty here is mainly the financial position of the country. It is fairly clear that we shall not get many more graduates to come in. The propaganda of the teaching profession in our universities has improved enormously in the last year or two, and there has been a much greater effort to show people the value of teaching. However, the 51 per cent. of graduates whom we get into the teaching profession would be hard to increase substantially, given the tremendous pull of other professions and occupations.
One obvious solution is that suggested by my hon. Friend, that we try to stop people retiring by means of the technique

which he described. I should be very interested if the Minister could give us any idea of how much it would cost to offer a pension plus pay to teachers in this category, because that would determine the whole feasibility of such an approach.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that we need to improve the Special Recruitment Scheme. However, there are one or two peculiar difficulties in that connection. A large number of people of diverse experience are taken into the scheme, and that is the intention, because it is a scheme to bring into teaching people who have spent five or ten years in other occupations and come to the conclusion that perhaps teaching is a more worthwhile way of spending their lives. They become more mature, and they turn to teaching, but it is not always evident that they have the capacity to make teachers. If we offered them all the teacher's starting pay when they came into the scheme, it would cost a fantastic amount of money, and a lot of it might be spent on people who did not end up in the profession.
The last figures that I have seen were given by the previous Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), now Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs. Speaking in 1965, she said that in the previous two years some 10,000 people had been recruited by means of the Special Recruitment Scheme, but she could not say whether more than 500 of the 10,000 ultimately would emerge as teachers. Such a situation clearly affects the amount of money which one is prepared to put into a scheme of this kind. If the selective processes could be improved, I should like to see a recruit paid the teacher's starting salary whilst on probation and undergoing training.
Another matter which I should like the Minister to reconsider is the reclassification of the umbrella term of "uncertificated teachers". Sometimes it covers people with high qualifications and long experience trained at English colleges or even overseas. I know of one case involving an American woman married to a British citizen who is regarded as uncertificated even though she was doing teacher training in the United States and is a highly qualified person. We should


break down the figure to show those who are not technically qualified according to Scottish qualifications and those who are unsatisfactorily trained as teachers, who have not the real capacity to teach, and whom we want to replace. We should re-classify the other people.
This does not give us a large number of suggestions for increasing the pool of teachers apart from the use of retiring teachers, Special Recruitment Scheme and intensive efforts to get graduates, which are the only ways we can set about the matter given the present position. In the longer run it is a question of altering the status of the profession and the attitude of our society to teachers, but that is too long-term and difficult to tackle in the next year or two.
If those suggestions to some extent increase the pool we come to the problem of the distribution of teachers. As I have said, I would regret any attempt to direct teachers or prohibit certain authorities from hiring them, because that might reduce the number of teachers available in toto, and we need them all to deal with the problem of raising the school-leaving age. I suggest that we must ultimately accept the principle that some parts of Scotland are less pleasant to work in, to teach in, or to do anything else in than others, and that therefore we cannot expect to get a reasonable distribution of teachers if they are paid equal amounts.
That is why the Roberts Report is fundamentally entirely correct to say that we must offer a financial incentive where the environment is bad, where teaching problems are difficult and where perhaps the burden of pupils per teacher is already particularly heavy. I do not imagine that this will lead to many teachers leaving highly-staffed areas or areas with a good ratio of teachers to pupils and going to the other areas, but I think that it will lead to teachers who start in those other areas not moving out at the earliest opportunity, which is part of the problem there.
About £22 million has been made available in Scotland to meet the problem of raising the school-leaving age. I hope that the Government will consider spending it not so much on school building but on increasing the teaching force.

We can operate with new or better buildings and more teachers, but with no teachers we cannot operate at all. If the money is available, I ask my right hon. Friend if there will be any chance of utilising it as the Roberts Report suggests—although I would go a little further myself in keeping on teachers who reach retirement age, and making the Special Recruitment Scheme more attractive and far-reaching. I wish that I could find more proposals to put before the House.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: This has been a useful and constructive debate. I know that the Secretary of State wishes to reply fully, and out of courtesy to him and to the House I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as I can. However, there is a number of points that has emerged in the debate which I should like to emphasise, and one or two others which I can perhaps contribute myself.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has just said, particularly in view of his academic background. He may have seen some American studies on the changing attitude of the university population in America to their future careers. It was encouraging to see how education has come up the list of first choice over the past few years, whereas other occupations have gone down.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's disdain—I hope that I do not over-state it—for commerce and its attractions for young men. The least of the reasons I would advance for that is that the activity of commerce very largely finances the education we need. However, there is a great problem of the attitude of young people towards education as a career. I often wonder whether we give enough attention to the conflicting attractions offered to young people at such a critical moment of their lives. One has only to visit any university to see the recruiting teams from one source or another all competing for the trained and educated mind which, alas, is still a commodity in very short supply in this country.
The House will congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) not only on his luck in the


Ballot, but on opening the debate so constructively. We on this side of the House agree with almost everything he says, although I think that he over-stated his case when he said that he had a certain amount of regard for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We on this side feel that the right hon. Gentleman's performance in education has been disappointing.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was wise to choose this subject, because, as he pointed out, he suffers particularly in his constituency from the problem of part-time education; nearly 2,000 children in his constituency receive only part-time education. I know that the problem is not new, but it is very disturbing that it still continues when we face not only the continuing shortage of teachers, but the enormous problem which 1970 will present.
I think that the primary school problem is not thought of and discussed enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, it is at the primary stage that the whole foundation of education in the formal sense is laid. If we deprive our children at that stage, how much more we deprive our society in the end.
I hope that we can spend more time in the future—perhaps we can do so tomorrow morning—on the problems of primary education. The Registrar-General's figures projected into the future show that the strain of numbers of children in the future at primary schools will increase sharply, and all today's speeches have shown how serious is the present shortage of teachers. At a time when we would have hoped to see the total teaching strength increasing the increase is very small. It increased by only 830 last year in primary and secondary schools, which is no more than a drop in the ocean of our need.
I am glad that tribute has been paid to Dame Jean Roberts, whose Committee published its Report last July. I echo what my hon. Friend said about the extraordinary delay by the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. I know that he has been holding consultations, and I hope that he will tell us this evening something about their result. It is a year

since the Report was published. The position is desperate and I hope that he can at last give the House at least some information.
I referred to the challenge of 1970. There we meet the twin problem which was identified so clearly by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian—on the one hand, the problem of the total number of teachers and, on the other, the problem of deployment, which was the central point that led to the setting up of the Roberts Committee.
I wish to deal for a moment with the pool of teachers. I am very worried by the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave me in replies to Questions last week. There are now about 18,500 certificated teachers in local authority secondary schools. In 1973, it is expected that the number will be no less than 22,700, but by then the number of children in the secondary schools will have risen sharply, partly because of the natural growth of the school population and partly because of the impact of raising the school-leaving age in 1970–71. The number of children at secondary schools in Scotland will rise from 271,000 to 364,000 in 1973. Therefore, the number of children will rise by 34 per cent. while the number of certificated teachers will rise by only 23 per cent.
Not only is the present problem acute, but it will become even more acute over the next six years. I do not want to be alarmist, but it would be highly irresponsible for any hon. Member to think that all was well and that we could drift on towards 1970 knowing that things would come right in the end. At present, they show very little sign of coming right in the end.
I agree that it was a right decision to announce the raising of the school-leaving age. I agree that it was right for the Secretary of State to reaffirm that decision on several occasions. It would be wrong, however, not to recognise the enormous problems which exist and which could undermine the educational benefit of the decision to raise the school-leaving age unless the most urgent action is taken now; and there is practically no time left.
We have heard some useful proposals today. I should like to know whether one or two other matters could be considered.


Perhaps the Secretary of State would say whether he sees scope for further encouragement of the married women teachers' recruitment scheme. I know that this has been going ahead quite well—it would be wrong not to call attention to that—but I wonder whether more encouragement could be given, particularly to married women who are mothers in providing domestic help or facilities to look after their children while they are teaching.
There has been reference to the Special Recruitment Scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State can give us some greater information than it was possible to provide in the 1966 Report. I trust that he will be able to tell us whether there is any prospect of making the scheme more attractive to people working in outside jobs, probably at higher pay, so that they will become more readily an important source of recruitment over the next few years.
It is very tempting to talk about statistics; I have been guilty of that to some extent. But we are dealing, not with statistics and figures, but with children and children's lives and the pattern of education which we want to provide for them. We must consider the sort of children who will be affected by the increase in the school-leaving age in the early 1970s. They are by their very nature reluctant. They will be staying on at school, not voluntarily, but because they will be statutorily required to do so. One should ask whether these children will require a larger measure of individual attention and care than is required on average today.
Will these children present a much greater strain on the teaching profession than their numbers might indicate because of the sort of children they are, namely, children staying on at school reluctantly and, moreover, big children who are maturing fast and perhaps presenting an extra strain on the administration of the schools?
I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the question of attitudes. I say to him in the friendliest way that the prospects would be improved if his attitude were, perhaps, seen to be more understanding than it is. I will not go over his handling of the salary award last year, which did harm, or his reference of it to the Prices and Incomes Board.

Recently, we have had the handling of the arbitration matter which we have debated at length in Committee and which has upset the profession considerably and quite unnecessarily. More recently, we have had the long delay in doing anything visible about the Roberts Report.
What has emerged today is a situation in which primary education is threatened by a shortage of teachers, not only in Glasgow, but elsewhere at the stage when the pattern of formal education starts. This situation threatens the structure of secondary education in facing the enormous challenge of 1970. I know that the Secretary of State understands these problems, but I hope that he will tell us that he will take action and will demonstrate a greater sense of urgency than he has shown in the past.

6.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We have taken more action than the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and his colleagues ever took, because they decided to raise the school-leaving age and did nothing about it. We had report after report and speech after speech, but they made absolutely no impact on the problem.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) on taking this opportunity to raise what is to him and certainly to all of us on this side of the House a very important matter. I intended to deal with this matter at considerable length tomorrow, but I welcome the chance to discuss it now. No one can afford to be complacent about the shortage of teachers and its effects; and that is certainly not the Government's position. It is our children who are in the schools. My hon. Friend speaks from a good deal of knowledge of the general problem and of the situation in Glasgow. He spoke in constructive and helpful way. That is something to be welcomed in a debate of this kind. I also welcome the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh).
It is easy to focus attention on one or two particular aspects and to imply that action on them will produce a solution. The fact is that there is no simple straightforward solution to the problem. It is


a mistake for anyone to suggest that the special recruitment scheme or, still less, the Roberts Report and its implementation give an answer to all the problems. We must increase the supply of teachers over the country as a whole. This is what I and the Government are determined to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Provan dealt particularly with the situation in Glasgow. His figures were right and his description of the shortage in Glasgow was right. But it is not really a Glasgow shortage; it is a shortage within parts of Glasgow. It is wrong to say that there are places where it is more pleasant to teach. I can think of places in Glasgow in which it is very pleasant indeed to teach. There are many schools in Glasgow which are well staffed by any standards.
One of the paradoxes is that although the supply of teachers has been increasing year by year, the last estimate of the shortage of teachers was only marginally lower than the figure for the previous year—3,660 in 1966 compared with 3,700 in 1965. There are two main reasons for this. The first is wastage. There is the inevitable outflow from the teaching service, with women teachers leaving to bring up families and older teachers retiring. We have considered the point raised, not for the first time, by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill and repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian. The cost is very considerable and it has its consequences for people in other services. This is one of the tremendous difficulties. But I hope that hon. Members will note that we announced on 15th June a change which should improve the salaries of retired teachers.
Secondly, the demands on the teaching force are constantly increasing. This reflects in part the growing numbers of pupils in the schools, not least in the later stages of secondary education. In part it springs from the improvement in standards of staffing and the development of new types of course. We introduced new curricula, with their new demands and new teachers, for example, in retail distribution for which the traditional teacher pattern does not make effective provision. My hon. Friends should appreciate that we have looked very carefully into many of these aspects.
Since the Special Recruitment Scheme was introduced in 1951 by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security, whom I am pleased to see present, over 5,000 teachers have been found. I can remember people scoffing at the idea that we would find teachers in this way, but we have found 5,000. I assure my hon. Friends that in the past few years we have had every indication that it is still a success.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) suggested that we should look again at the scheme and that there was hardship. The number of inquiries which we receive and the number of people we enrol for the scheme show that it would be quite wrong to suggest that because in one or two individual cases whe have not been able to meet particular needs, there is something vitally wrong. Frankly, we could not meet all the individual circumstances of all applicants.
These are the grants which are paid. A married or an unmarried student living in lodgings gets £340; for the maintenance of a wife, another £190; for the maintenance of his first child, £80, for a second child £60, and £55 for each subsequent child. If they are over 25—and that people tend to be if they have two or three children—applicants over the age of 25 may qualify for a mature student's allowance of up to £100 a year. That is not ungenerous. It is because of this, I think, that we are able to attract so many inquiries and, from the inquiries, to get people into training. Indeed, not only have we a considerable number in training, but we have a similar number taking qualifications at the colleges and universities.
We all want to see expansion and diversification of the work of the schools, but it adds to the problem of supply and demand of teachers. The same can be said of the proposal to raise the school-leaving age to 16 in the school session 1970–71. That is still our intention.
What I do not like is to have the hon. Member opposite telling me that October last year was the last date for someone to enter in order to be ready for 1970–71. It was his Government which, unprompted, made the declaration to raise the school-leaving age. I think that the party opposite did that in March, 1964.

Mr. Hannan: It was in January, 1963.

Mr. Ross: That makes it even worse, but I fancy that it was 1964.
We had all these shortages then. The Glasgow position was, if anything, probably worse than it is today for part-time education. We had the bottleneck in relation to qualifications. The party opposite tried—not the previous Secretary of State, but the one before him, Lord Muirshiel—to do something about this, but he did not get the support of the profession for it and it lapsed thereafter.
Hon. Members opposite should be the last to say that we have no sense of urgency. We have shown a sense of urgency. I assure them that it was not easy to take the decision, especially for one who himself was a teacher, that we should depart from our traditional standards of qualification for teaching in Scotland by which all men should be graduates and that we should introduce the three-year diploma course. We did it, however, in the light of the facts and of our proven need to get men, and to get them into primary schools, and the help that this will give us in other areas.
The statistical forecast has often been quoted. The raising of the school-leaving age will itself increase the demand for teachers by something like 4,000, but with the increasing tendency towards voluntary staying-on after the age of 15—this is not something which will hit us suddenly in 1971; children are already staying on—the final jump to the age of 16 may not be as great as was originally expected. We believe, however, that the only real way to deal with the problem is to increase the intake of teachers by all the means that are open to us. This is our main preoccupation.
One of the most encouraging facts is the continued increase in the number of students coming forward for teacher training. Colleges of education currently have a student population of 9,200, or more than double the figure of eight years ago. Expansion is taking place and credit is due for the fact that no fully qualified candidates have been refused places at the colleges for the three-year primary course or the course for graduates and specialist diploma holders.
We have a large and continuing programme for the development of the colleges of education, designed not only to

increase capacity, but to raise the quality of the teaching facilities. Places like Jordanhill have been under considerable pressure in recent years. In December, 1964, there were only seven colleges. Now, there are 10. Three new colleges have been built at Ayr, Falkirk and Hamilton, and we are presently expanding the Ayr and Falkirk colleges to increase their capacity from 600 to 900 students each.
At Cramond, a new college of physical education for women has replaced the Aberdeen college at a cost of £1 million. A new college for Roman Catholic women teachers will come into use next session at Bearsden in place of the existing college at Dowanhill. It is expected to cost £1·6 million. A new college is planned to replace the existing college in Duhdee. At Jordanhill, new centres for in-service training and further education teacher training are planned at an estimated cost of £1 million, in addition to additional expenditure of £1·6 million which is proposed for improved facilities for physical education teacher training, for science and mathematics teaching and for extensive improvements to administrative and communal accommodation. At Moray House, major extensions are also in hand at an estimated cost of £1·5 million.
In all, capital projects to the value of £3·6 million are at the construction stage and work to the value of £7·9 million is planned. Does this show a lack of urgency and interest? Had this work been started and gone head before the announcements were made and we were seen to be in a far better position, it would have been fair for hon. Members opposite now to criticise, but we are facing the position and getting on with it as quickly as we can.
The number of women entering the college of education diploma course for primary school teachers has increased markedly from 1,312 in 1961 to 2,148 to 1966 last year and we expect the total intake in the diploma course in October this year to be no less than 2,700. These things are being done.
The results are reasonably satisfactory. More graduates are entering the teaching profession. In 1961 the number entering the colleges was 901. Last session it was 1,182, and in the school session beginning October this year we expect it to be 1,400. By 1970 this figure will, we reckon, have gone up to 1,700. We are getting a fair


share of the graduates. It is not the question of cost to them of training within the first year that is the stumbling block. The question of image is one which must be faced by the local authorities. It is being faced by the colleges and something is being done to try to improve it.
As to the Roberts Report, someone suggested to me that Glasgow's position was not the worst. Some quotation on this was attributed to me. As it was said at a private meeting, I do not know how quotations can be in order. I remember somebody asking whether the shortage of teachers was a Glasgow problem. My answer was, "No", because I could cite schools in Ayrshire and elsewhere where, bearing in mind that practically all the staff were uncertificated, there was as great a shortage as in any school in Glasgow. The concentration of shortage in Glasgow, and in particular parts of Glasgow, is, however, a serious problem. I spoke to Glasgow about this. I sincerely hope that without direction we can get a proper appreciation of what can be done by a proper distribution within Glasgow itself.
When it comes to the Roberts Report, hon. Members opposite seem to think that this is an easy matter. They should know, however, that two attempts were made for this by the previous Secretary of State in 1963 but failed and were turned down by teachers because the teachers did not want discrimination. They do not want Glasgow to be treated alone in such a way as to rob Renfrew, Paisley and Lanarkshire, to drag in teachers to Glasgow and create greater shortages elsewhere. That is why the position is much more difficult than hon. Members opposite would have us believe. We might be able to work out something that could be acceptable, but it will not be easy. I have not turned it down, and I am prepared still further to look into the matter.
I was asked about travelling expenses and whether the approval of the Secretary of State was required. The answer is, "No". I was asked whether expenditure in travelling expenses would be covered by grant. It is, of course, relevant to the calculation of rate support grant.

It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings thereon lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government business).

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Since this is a short debate, I propose to be as brief as possible so that back benchers will have a chance of making their views known.
The statement I made previously covered most of the proposed increases contained in the Bill. The basic proposal in the Bill is an increase of 10s. in the standard rates of all National Insurance pensions and benefits for a single person and of 16s. for a married couple.
The corresponding increases in 1965 were 12s. 6d. and 21s. So, in the first three years of our term of office, benefits will have been increased by £1 2s. 6d. for a single person—that is, one-third—and £1 17s. for a married couple. During the same period those with fixed incomes—and we all think immediately of the elderly retirement pensioner—have benefited by the restraint imposed on prices by our prices and incomes policy, although all of us who are in regular contact with retirement pensioners and others are well aware how little margin there is in their spending money and how severely any price increases bear on them.
To re-establish the value of the pension rate introduced in 1965 would require an increase of 6s. 11d. on the single rate and 11s. 3d. on the married rate. The real value of the increases in benefits over the whole period since we took office in October, 1964, in terms of purchasing power, is 15s. 4d. in the case of a single pensioner and £1 5s. 5d. in the case of a married couple. By the autumn prices may have risen, but the increase proposed is intended to secure more than a full restoration of the very substantial improvement in real standards that we made in 1965.
We shall continue to watch closely the value of these basic contributory benefits, and I would like to repeat here the assurance that I have given on a


number of occasions that in considering the many competing claims on national resources we shall certainly not neglect our obligation to the very many people, particularly elderly people, who are very largely dependent on the contributory benefits.
The proposed new rates of benefit are set out in detail in the Schedule 2, and the old and new rates of benefit are shown side by side in Appendix I to the White Paper.
Hon. Members will wish to have some idea of the number of people affected by the change. The great majority are retirement pensioners, of whom there are currently about 6½ million, and everyone knows that that number is steadily rising.
I want to say a word about increments to retirement pension. Another improvement we have felt able to make on this occasion is a higher return in the form of increments for contributions paid after minimum pension age. Increments are a measure of encouragement and compensation for those who, having reached 65, or 60 in the case of women, are able and willing to defer their retirement and continue working, and it is right that they should be increased from time to time to take account of benefit increases over the years.
To the flat-rate retirement pension to which their contributions already entitle them there is added at present an increase of 1s. a week for every 12 further contributions they pay. They thus continue to earn their living, contribute to the national effort, and earn some addition to the pension they will draw when they eventually retire. This is of some importance when I come to deal with the question of selectivity.
Under the Bill, the return for contributions paid during postponed retirement after the appointed day will be raised to one 1s. increment for every pine contributions paid, instead of 12 as at present.
We also increase industrial injuries benefits. The Bill increases disablement pension from £6 15s. to £7 12s. for an assessment of 100 per cent. Injury benefit is increased by 10s. from £6 15s. to £7 5s. This means that disablement benefit and injury benefit will no longer be the same amount. Last year, however, we intro-

duced earnings-related supplements, which can be paid with injury benefit as well as with other short-term benefits, but not with disablement benefit by itself.
Increases are also made by the Bill in disablement gratuities and in the supplementary allowances payable with disablement benefit and the additional benefits payable for dependants. The industrial injuries standard widow's pension is increased from £4 10s. to £5 1s. The changes in the industrial injuries rate will provide increased benefits for about 350,000 people.
The special £1 rate of pension payable to the younger childless industrial widow who is not incapable of self-support is increased to £1 10s. Hon. Members will remember that in 1965 we raised the National Insurance 10s. widow's pension to £1 10s. This further change does not prejudice the general review of provision for widowhood, including the lower rate industrial widow's benefit, but it ensures that industrial widows without the full standard rate of widow's pension receive £1 10s. whether or not they have, as many do, underlying entitlement to the £1 10s. National Insurance pension.
I turn now to contributions. Flat-rate contributions are increased by 2s. a week for an employed man and 2s. 3d. for his employer. This includes an increase of 1d. a side on the industrial injuries part of the contribution. The woman who pays the full Class I contribution will pay an extra 1s. 9d. and her employer an extra 2s. The higher flat-rate contributions for those contracted out of the graduated pension scheme will be increased by the same amounts. The contribution for a self-employed man becomes £1 1s., an increase of 2s. 4d., and for a self-employed woman 17s. 3d., an increase of 1s. 11d. Other contributions are increased broadly in proportion. Graduated contributions for short-term earnings-related benefits ands for graduated additions to retirement pension are not affected by the Bill.
I take it that hon. Members will have had an opportunity to study the Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill and the Government Actuary's Report on the Bill's financial effects. The cost of the increases to the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Funds is £219


million and £10·6 million respectively in the first full year of operation. The Exchequer supplement to the two funds will be increased by £53 million and £1·8 million respectively.
I am aware of the concern—it was expressed by Opposition Members—lest this substantial sum of money should be going to those who have no need of it, and I would like to say more about this later. I am aware, too, of the suggestion that the increased social security expenditure is a threat to the prices and incomes policy because it adds to the costs of both employer and employee.
My right hon. Friend the First Secretary has already stated the Government's policy on this, and all I would add is that those who through age, unemployment, sickness, or injury, are temporarily or permanently removed from the working population are entitled to practical help from the rest of us.
There is widely voiced concern for those who suffer most from rising costs, and I very much hope that there will be an equally wide determination to avoid reducing, by taking action which further increases costs, the value of what we have been able to do for them, even if this means accepting some restriction in profits, on the one hand, or in personal expenditure on the other. I believe strongly that the nation must decide its priorities in such matters.
I want now to say a word about Clause 5 of the Bill. I know that most people are very concerned about the poverty suffered by children. Our long-term proposals will be put to the House before the Summer Recess, and I think again that most sensible people realise that a radical and permanent solution requires the most careful consideration of a large number of factors, many of which were aired during the earlier debate on this subject, and have been discussed since then both inside and outside the House. As it may be desirable to make an interim improvement in family allowances to coincide with the increase in other benefits in the autumn, and since the intervention of the Summer Recess would make this impossible, we are taking the special, and purely temporary power in Clause 5.
I propose to deal next with what I call the burning question of selectivity.

Our proposals for increasing National Insurance benefits have been attacked as being wasteful by people, including Front and back bench Members opposite, who talk a great deal about selectivity and retired millionaires. I urge the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) to "come clean" this evening and tell us what the Tories mean by selectivity from the point of view of the benefits provided in the Bill, because the issues involved are of fundamental importance to every man, woman, and child in the country.
I have here a Conservative publication. It is a scrap of paper called "The Weekly News", and is dated 24th June, 1967, a little over a week ago. It says:
Recall Harold Wilson's smear that if the Conservatives were returned to power the Welfare State would be replaced by 'the Means Test State'. When throwing this dirt he knew only too well that the accusation was unfair, untrue and completely without foundation.
All I can say is that it looks as though the wires have become crossed between the Opposition Front Bench and the Conservative Central Office, because since the publication of this little scrap of paper we have seen another publication, a pamphlet written by the hon. Lady the Member for Melton, and published only last weekend.
I have read this publication very carefully. There is complete silence on the question of selectivity with regard to the benefits in the Bill. One heading is, "Labour's failure". I think that this is a real compliment. I know that the hon. Lady must be very conscious of the abysmal failure of her party, because of all the things that she lists here. She must also be aware of the considerable improvements which we have made in a short time over a very wide field. It is, indeed, a compliment for the hon. Lady to expect us almost overnight to remedy all the ills that her party left behind.
We are only too well aware of how much still needs to be done, and extremely anxious to do it, but, concerned as all of us on this side of the House are about any person who is deprived, we are not magicians. If ever there was a crushing criticism of generations of Tory rule, not just 13 years of it, this pamphlet which the hon. Lady wrote, and which was published at the weekend, is just that.
I return now to the Bill, and to the question of selectivity. All of us hope to reach retirement age, and all of us at some time are likely to suffer the sort of misfortune, such as sickness, for which our current schemes of social security make provision, and today I welcome the opportunity of making the Government's attitude clear.
Some of the critics appear to suggest that contributory insurance benefits should have no place now in our social services because they are indiscriminate. Let us look at the people who are receiving these benefits, and at the sort of people who will receive them. We have heard a lot about retired millionaires, but my concern is for the majority of the population who work hard all their lives for a living wage, and have the right to expect a pension at a reasonable rate when they retire.
If hon. Gentlemen want to know about the financial circumstances of the people receiving contributory pensions, I recommend them to look at the report published by my Department in June of last year on the financial and other circumstances of retirement pensioners. They will see that there are many retirement pensioners whose incomes, though above the level which would have attracted supplementary pension, were less than £1 above that level. Overall, half the couples, two-thirds of the single men, and four-fifths of the single women—and single women form the majority of pensioner households—had net available resources either below the National Assistance standard, or not more than 20s. above it.
Those who had rather more than this modest level were still, for the most part, living on small incomes, commonly derived from occupational pensions, private insurance, and the fruits of a lifetime's personal saving. Do we care about these people and the hardship many of them must have endured in order to make that extra provision?
Among them were the people who continued to work after retirement age and earn increments. These are the people who have contributed throughout their working lives in the expectation that they would get a pension at a fair level, which at the very least would be protected against erosion by inflation, and indeed which would give them a share

in the national wealth which they had helped to create.
The vast majority of pensioners are people in modest circumstances who have made their plans for retirement on this basis, and I ask the House and the country: are we now to break faith with them because of the kind of criticism which has been levelled at us by the Opposition and by what I call some of the responsible journals in this country? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite say "No."

Miss Mervyn Pike: Miss Mervyn Pike (Melton) rose—

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady can deal with this when she makes her speech.
It has also been suggested that it is nonsense to say that the contributions of these people have earned any right to benefits at the level that we are now proposing. There seems to be a great deal of confusion in some minds about the contributory principle. Obviously, the contributory principle of a modern social security scheme is not the same principle as that of the classic type of commercial insurance. Contributions do not buy benefits in the direct way that they do in a funded commercial scheme.
Expenditure on current benefits is met, for the most part, out of income from current contributions. The working population meets current obligations in the full expectation that future generations of contributors will, in turn, finance their pensions when they retire. These contributions are, therefore, a genuine provision for the contributor's own retirement.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be interested to know that most developed countries now administer their social security schemes in this way, since this is the only realistic basis to adopt in current circumstances. Are we to abandon the contributory principle in favour of a means-tested non-contributory system financed from taxes? The alternative of wholesale means-tested benefits is where the demands of hon. Members opposite for selectivity really lead.
The grossest misunderstanding evident in some Press comment on the Bill is that the issues can sensibly be narrowed down to a straight choice between selectivity of this sort, on the one hand, and universal contributory social insurance, on the


other. The Government's concern to develop an intelligent strategy for the social services, based on sound information about the country's social problems, gives us a better right than hon. Members opposite to talk about selectivity.
We have carried out surveys on which to base each step that we have taken in the social services. Our research department at the Ministry is planning the research into these matters. I am sure that selective benefit has an important part to play—and I have always said so—for example, in family allowances and in housing, to name only two. There may be many others that I could add.
In the benefits field the Government have firmly made it clear that the supplementary benefit, and, above all, the supplementary pension, is a benefit made available as of right to those who need it. But it is quite plain that non-contributory benefits cannot take over the major burden of providing for sickness, unemployment and old age.
It would be foolish not to look at the overall problem and recognise that excessive reliance on non-contributory benefits, particularly in old age, could stunt the growth of personal saving and thrift, including provision of occupational pensions. These can, in any event, never be sure of covering the whole ground—and many widows know, to their cost, how they have not been covered by occupational pensions—but, for the great mass of our people, they will seem much less worth while if they cannot be built on a firm foundation of a contributory state pension and so offer some real assurance of advantage in retirement.
We need this foundation if we are effectively to limit the areas of poverty in our society for which selective benefits can properly provide. It is not a question of a division between complete universalism and complete selectivity. I accept that reliance in the main on the contributory system involves a willingness on the part of contributors to meet the cost. It is my belief that our people are prepared to pay for better provision for sickness, unemployment and old age. They will meet the challenge in a responsible way.
No one who has studied these matters can doubt that in all parts of the world the contributory principle has

represented a major step forward in the development of any country's system of social security. In common with all progressive countries we see the future in terms of further development of the contributory principle to provide earnings-related pensions guaranteeing to retired people the maintenance of a reasonable standard in their retirement.
Today, we are keeping faith with the older generation of contributors by continuing our policy of ensuring that they are not left behind. For many of them the contractual pension has been a secure element on which they have planned their provision for their retirement. This is the true purpose of a contributory pension—to guarantee to working members of the community that they will continue to receive a just return for their efforts when they have ceased to be wage-earners. I am certain that that purpose will receive widespread support.
The new measures already introduced as a result of our continuing review of the whole field of the social services and the proposals which are still being considered do not obviate the need to keep faith with existing beneficiaries. I have said on many occasions that a complete recasting of our social security system overnight is impossible. We are tackling the problem in turn. We have already tackled many of them and have brought forward legislation to deal with them. Family endowment proposals will be announced very shortly. Work on a scheme of earnings-related pensions to replace the existing scheme, and on improved provision for widows and the long-term sick and disabled is continuing.
I repeat that we are very conscious of what remains to be done, but I assure hon. Members that we are also very determined to make progress as speedily as possible. We shall do this by a combination of universal and selective benefits. Labour has always known the devastating effects of poverty upon families and individuals. One of our primary aims is to eradicate it wherever it exists.

7.28 p.m.

Miss Mervyn Pike: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on once again making a very able speech about practically nothing. It has been the usual plum of the slightly tearful, rather hopeful and vaguely sneerful. She must not blame my hon. Friends and me if,


she having pulled out her plum, the rest of the Press and the journalists have been sour about it. The criticism that she has talked about today has not come from these benches; we have not had time to say very much in debate. The criticism has come—she must have read it, and it seems to have got under her skin—from outside the House, from people working in the social field and people writing about social problems.
There was, in the right hon. Lady's speech and in the Bill, just about enough policy to cover two by-elections and the next Socialist Party conference. This is what we complain about. We had again the story of her great reviews of social policy. These are reviews engaging the energies of the right hon. Lady and her colleagues and those so ably done by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). It must be significant that the right hon. Lady has already found it necessary to review her policies more often in three years than Queen Victoria reviewed her troops in all her 60 years.
But this is not amusing, and this debate must be concerned not with what is in the Bill so much as with what has been left out. This is what the criticisms and the sourness in the Press and by people outside have been about; a vital opportunity has been lost. Lost opportunities are bad enough in themselves. The right hon. Lady has now had three years to assess and formulate her policies, as well as 13 years in Opposition. She spoke about my writing a small pamphlet—a very slight one, I admit—which comes out today, but at least it shows that we are thinking of our policies and looking at the problem. We are not complacent, saying that there is nothing more to do. All right, we should have done it when we were in office. We did not finish everything in 13 years, but we got on a good deal faster with most of the problems than the right hon. Lady is doing.
The trouble with the Bill is not that we criticise in any way the financial justice which it contains, but that it will increase rather than diminish the present social problems, anomalies and inequalities which worry all of us. The Bill increases the main insurance benefits by 10s. for the single person and 16s. for the married couple, but these money in-

creases are not increases in real terms, as the right hon. Lady said.
The present £4 pension has already lost about 6s. 11d. of its buying power since March, 1965, and the real increase in purchasing power is about 3s., which is dwindling rapidly. We all know that big increases in prices are on the way. We are now faced, for example, with a rise of about 2s. in the £ for electricity, an item which looms very large in an old person's budget. Therefore, despite all the rave notices for these pension increases, by the time they start in November we will be paying out an extra £220 million a year simply to keep pensions and benefits in line with prices, and to repair the damage to the buying power of these pensions brought about by the failure of the Government's prices policy.
The Government may talk about restraining prices, but the right hon. Lady cannot deny that measures like the S.E.T., increased petrol duties, higher Purchase Tax, postal charges and the rest, are directly responsible for much of the rise in the cost of living. If prices continue to rise only as quickly as they have done in the past 27 months, By October 10 per cent. of the 12½ per cent. increase will be needed just to make good the lost purchasing power. The Spectator of 23rd June said that the remaining 2½ per cent. will be less in real terms than the percentage rise in incomes in the same period. In other words, the margin is smaller for these people. So much for the right hon. Lady's promises to ensure that pensioners will continue to get an increasing share of the country's prosperity; we are running very hard just to stay in the same place.
Having read the Bill and listened to the right hon. Lady, the only forward planning of which I can detect a sign has nothing to do with social policy or social justice. The right hon. Lady must accept that the one pattern which stands out clearly is that of the Government's election tactics. Hon. Members will have noted that, as a result of the increase in National Insurance contributions, the Fund will have a surplus of £1 million at the end of 1967–68, and of £17 million at the end of 1968–9.
The Government Actuary's Report on the financial provisions of the Bill admits that the proposed contribution increases


will be more than is needed to meet the direct cost of the increases in benefit, the balance of the extra income being required to meet the deficit which will accrue at 31st March, 1970, if the present rates of benefit and contributions were continued. It is not difficult to deduce, therefore, that the next pension increase—this will be of interest to pensioners as well—will be in June, 1969, in time for an autumn election. All I wonder is what on earth its purchasing power will be by then. In the meantime, of course, I should be surprised if the right hon. Lady denies that the Cambridge and Walthamstow by-elections will be in the first week of November.
So much for the contents of the Bill and its forward planning. It is a cruel weakness, as the right hon. Lady knows, that it is just another botched-up, tinkering, stop-gap Measure, which once more ignores the real problems which still remain. By giving an all-across-the-board increase, it not only ignores the heart of the social problems facing us but exaggerates the injustices and anomalies. For instance, there is a general increase in sickness benefits under the National Insurance Scheme and in the injury benefits and disablement pensions under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. We welcome this, but the person born crippled and the wife who is chronically disabled and who have no benefit will still be without benefit under this Bill and the right hon. Lady's social policies. This is unfair and wrong.
It is equally wrong that people suffering from multiple sclerosis or diseases of that kind who come under the National Insurance Scheme should get lower benefit than those suffering from industrial disease or the results of industrial accidents. There has been no attempt to put this right and no statement about it. In the provisions for illness and disability there should have been more discrimination in favour of chronic and long-term illness. Employers are increasingly providing benefits through sick pay arrangements for short-term illness and, of course, there is the earnings-related sickness benefit under the State scheme for the first six months of illness.
Surely it is, therefore, much more in the case of long-term illness and disability that greater help from public funds is

needed. Yet the Bill makes no attempt to discriminate in favour of long-term or chronic disability but provides a general increase and does not even close the gap whereby the person born crippled and the chronically disabled wife get nothing.
What about the other anomalies—the widows, for example? We hoped that the right hon. Lady might put right some of the anomalies here, but the pensionless widow in her late 40s whose children have grown up remains pensionless. A woman widowed for the second time late in life may still fail to qualify for a pension. I am thinking particularly of the example of a woman widowed for the first time in her early 40s, whose children have grown up—which means that she has no pension, although she had been married for 15 years—and who then marries again. If her second husband died before three years are up, she would still get no pension because her marriage had lasted for less than three years. I cannot see why the rules cannot be altered to allow the first marriage to count towards the three-year condition.
What about the widow whose husband dies of cancer, or a similar disease which comes under the National Insurance Scheme, who would get a lower pension than a woman whose husband died of industrial disease or accident? What about the anomalies in increased contributions and the increased burden of these on those least able to pay? The increases of 2s. for an employed man and 1s. 9d. for an employed woman are steep for the lower-paid workers. In the case of those families with earnings which are already below the level of supplementary benefits, this increase in contribution will represent a further heavy blow at their inadequate living standards.
The right hon. Lady has had three years to consider these problems and is still only taking powers and saying that before we rise for the Recess she will have something to say. But unless she has something pretty drastic to say pretty quickly, these people will be at a tremendous disadvantage.
Since the present Government took office, the employed man has had to pay an extra 4s., taking into account this latest increase. Yet in 1963 the present Leader of the House complained because we increased contributions by 1s. and


said that it was a very heavy impost. The right hon. Lady will remember the speeches she made complaining about such a heavy increase in contributions imposed on the lowest-paid workers. Yet for the lowest-paid workers the contributions under this Bill will take a higher proportion of their earnings than in 1964. I shall be surprised if the increases do not lead to a demand for higher wages and prices. I read in the Financial Times that the increases will cost the National Coal Board about £3 million and British Railways about £2 million.
This will hit the poorest in the community the hardest. The burden is harder for the employed person on the lowest wage. When they were in opposition, hon. Members opposite criticised increases in flat-rate National Insurance contributions as a "regressive poll tax". They do not have much to say about that at present. The proposals for raising the supplementary benefit scales, welcome as they are—I stress that we welcome those measures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, we do, but they only put the position back to where it was before. We are grateful for that, even if we are having to run fast to stay still, but they merely aggravate the problem of the low-wage-earning families, because already many of them are not able to benefit to the full extent from supplementary benefit.
When we were discussing the new proposals on the basis of the right hon. Lady's statement of 21st June, she asked how I would be more selective. She has asked that again in the context of this Bill. I tell her straight away that I would give priority to the real needs, which are largely ignored. The obvious example is the low wage-earning family where the income is below the level of the benefit. We are no wiser about the Government's intentions in this connection. We do not know the proposals. Does the right hon. Lady or anyone on the Government Front Bench know? It is not good enough to take blanket powers such as those in Clause 5 to alter family allowances without the faintest idea of how those powers are to be used.
What sort of increases are to be proposed? Are they to be selective and, if so, what will be the cost to the taxpayer? We are told that a general increase of 10s. for family allowances would

cost £160 million a year and that the Government have quite rightly rejected this. If that is not so, perhaps the right hon. Lady will correct me. What does she propose? In the debate on family poverty on 20th April, I suggested that more help on a selective basis should be given by extending the scope of the child maintenance allowances, improving the allowances themselves, and revising the needs test involved. I also suggested increasing the cash family allowances where the income was below a certain level—say, too low to benefit from child tax allowance. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us the estimated cost of a 10s. increase in family allowances to families where the income is too low to benefit from the child tax allowances.
Surely it is possible by now to tell the House what the Government's proposals are. Are we to wait for the next three weeks until the Summer Recess for a series of Press leaks, inspired or otherwise? The right hon. Lady must accept that it is not only those in this House who are getting impatient. I have much sympathy with Mr. Tony Lynes who, according to The Guardian of 22nd June, described it as "fantastic" that the Government have still not made up their mind. I shall not keep bringing the right hon. Member for Sowerby into this argument because I think his patience is already exhausted. He was saying so in the debate on 25th April. He could not understand why proposals had not come forward and I do not think that anyone can understand it. We shall seek in Committee to amend Clause 5, because we want a fuller explanation of the Minister's intentions.
We are told that she needs it and that during the Recess she might suddenly hit on a plan to help these families. This Bill and this Clause give the most vivid illustration of the utter failure of the right hon. Lady and of the Government to thrash out and agree upon their social policies and social objectives. I do not know where the right hon. Lady is going for her summer holidays. Last year, if I remember rightly, she went to Yugoslavia. I hope that she enjoyed herself, but this year she might perhaps stay in this country and brood over the need to get some sort of plan agreed before she goes to Scarborough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] It is not cheap at all, for she is asking us to pass a Clause on something


we know nothing about. It is fantastic the way in which the right hon. Lady can get away with this. Even her best friends are getting weary of what we could call "The Tales of Herbison". She must get her plans straight and give us some indication of what she is going to do about these vital matters.
While she has been thinking of these things, and we have been having these reviews and arguments have been going on in the Cabinet, the plight of these families, particularly of the children, has been getting steadily worse. If the delay and indecision by the Government have been tragic for the young people, they have been equally hard for the old. On 21st June, the right hon. Lady said that of those of pensionable age and over the survey of June, 1965 showed 50 per cent. of married couples were under the National Assistance level, or not more than 20s. above and 81 per cent. of single women were in the same position. She said on these figures it would be difficult to be selective. I am not sure that I entirely accept that. On the right hon. Lady's figures, it seem strange that the increase in scale rates of supplementary benefit are to be a great deal less than the all-across-the-board increases in retirement pension and benefits generally.
Those getting help from the Supplementary Benefits Commission will get the least help from this latest round of increases. Why has the right hon. Lady not considered graduating insurance for retirement on the principle that after a person has been retired for some time, his savings get used up? We all know that older people need more financial help and care than those who have recently retired. Very often those who have recently retired can still get part-time work.
The right hon. Lady said that 81 per cent. of single women pensioners were on the National Assistance level or about £1 above it. It would be interesting to know what proportion of those are over 70 years of age. Most women are rather tougher than men, and they generally tend to live longer. I should imagine that it was a very large proportion of the 81 per cent. the Minister mentioned. These people have suffered most from inflation and their savings and stock of goods have been used up. These people need more help and their increasing needs

should be recognised. The report of the Food Education Society of last November claimed that about 1 million old people were suffering from malnutrition. I do not know the true figure and I do not think anyone does, but I do know that the elderly housebound are much more likely to suffer from malnutrition and lack of warmth and comfort than others. Here is a way in which we could have a graduated scheme for those on pensions.
What about those who are not older retirement pensioners but who are approaching retirement? The provision for improving the increment for postponement of retirement beyond the minimum age is very welcome and we are grateful for that, but perhaps the right hon. Lady could tell us whether the increments will be on a proper actuarial basis and what will be the cost of the proposed change.
I see from the Report of the Government Actuary that there is still a trend towards earlier retirement. If, as forecast, expectation of life continues to increase and people at the same time tend to retire earlier, that is bound to have economic consequences of which we must take note in our forward planning. Peter Jay, in an article in The Times, pointed out that between 1966 and 1980 the total population is likely to increase by 6 million but the number of people of working age will increase by only about 800,000. On many occasions we have said that we must try to avoid the sudden change from full-time work to complete retirement. This sudden change is bad for those concerned, and it must surely also be bad economics. We should be giving far more study to this problem and to the retraining of older men and women, and in this context we should like to know what help is being given to these people. Selectivity arises not only in increasing the benefits but also in increasing the opportunities and the security of people who are approaching pension or who have been on pension for some time.
In spite of what the right hon. Lady may think, I want to be fair to her and I want to welcome the Bill as far as it goes, and to welcome the things that it does. But she must accept that it is difficult to find anything good to say about a Bill which has so little in it apart from, once more, a straight increase across the board. If she thinks that I


am being too hard, she should study more carefully both Press reports and the speeches made by well-informed and realistic people, many of them her own supporters.
It is obvious that the right hon. Lady and some of her hon. Friends find it difficult to eat some of their words, and we do not want to make it more difficult for them. What matters is not raking over old scores or continually asking, "Why didn't you do it in the last 13 years?". [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Lady knows in her heart of hearts that what I say is true. She knows that there was a steady increase in benefits and that the challenge now is not only to go on with steady increases across the board but also to get rid of the pockets of poverty. Even though in the House we may find it amusing and even edifying to go over the old arguments, people working in this field in the world outside are beginning to get more and more tired of it.
What is necessary is that we should hammer out between us policies which will enable us to care properly for those who need and which will enable us, too, to root out the remaining pockets of poverty and to prevent a recurrence of poverty and misery in future generations. If we are to do that we must make provision for the sudden sharp drop in income which all too often occurs on retirement when there is no adequate occupational pension scheme on top of the State pension. At the last General Election we on this side of the House stressed the need to spread occupational pension schemes as widely as possible. I hope that the Government are now genuinely convinced of the value of these schemes and have moved from their former attitude of hostility. At the 1962 Labour Party conference the Leader of the House threatened that Labour's half-pay on retirement scheme would be
very expensive to contract out of"—
those were his words.
I hope that there is no question of the Government withdrawing or reducing the tax allowance on contributions to occupational schemes. We accept that there must be an adequate earnings-related State pension scheme for those who, for one reason or another, cannot be covered by an occupational scheme, but we should

like to see much more flexible arrangements whereby the occupational schemes can continue to grow side by side with any State scheme. At present those in occupational schemes have to be completely within the State graduated scheme, too, or completely contracted out of it, and for those who are contracted out problems inevitably arise when there are changes in the State graduated scheme.
I want to see a much more flexible arrangement whereby there could be partial contracting out of the State scheme. I think that "abatements" is the correct technical term. For example, if a 10s. a week contribution to an occupational scheme gives at least as good value as 10s. contributed to the State scheme, there seems to me no reason at all why there should not be contracting out of the scheme to that extent. In this way we should overcome the problem of adjustments to the occupational schemes when the State scheme is altered. I also welcome, as I am sure does the right hon. Lady, the growing concern of occupational schemes with post-retirement inflation as well as inflation which takes place during the person's working life.
Another main problem in connection with occupational schemes is the transferability or preservation of pension rights on a change of job. I hope that the Government will consider having discussions with industry on this point, possibly with a view to establishing a clearing house where pension rights can be put into cold storage on change of job and claimed when the qualifying age is reached.
But need either in retirement or in the course of working life is often as much concerned with housing costs as with State cash benefits. It is ironic that while we have many people living in council houses at subsidised rents who do not need help there are other families in real need who are living in privately rented homes and who can get no help at all in respect of rent from public funds unless they happen to fall within the scope of supplementary benefits. Many of these are older people, or low-income and large families. It is unfair and it is illogical, and we should seriously consider changing from our present system of subsidies attached to the house to a system whereby those families in need receive a housing allowance payable


direct to them. We already have a rates rebate scheme and the fair rents machinery, which could well be adapted for this additional purpose.
The right hon. Lady made some play about a means test. I would ask her again to read the debate of 20th April. I made it very clear in that debate that we never envisaged means testing the contributory pension. I made that doubly clear, as the right hon. Lady knows. But if we are to move forward to realistic policies we must try to rationalise and to reduce the many and various means tests which are in existence for so many different purposes. Most people, irrespective of party, now accept the principle of a means test. The problem is the practical one of finding a form of means test which would be generally acceptable. I see that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), indicates that he does not accept the principle of the means test. I believe that the majority of people on all sides of the House accept that principle and that we are arguing about finding one which is acceptable, which is dignified and which is just.
Having said those harsh things about the right hon. Lady, I should like to congratulate her on having considerably reduced the incidence of failure among old people, for one reason or another, to apply for supplementary benefits to which they are entitled. She has done a particularly good job in that respect, although she will agree that successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have emphasised since the war that there is a genuine entitlement to this extra help and that therefore there should be no question of stigma to those who apply for it. The question is whether there is still a stigma in the public mind. I must admit that, personally, I think that there is a stigma among the very old—those over 80, those who were over pensionable age when the present scheme started. That is why, for this reason only, I should like them to get some pension without any means test, because they cannot accept that there is no stigma attaching to a means test. But I am sure—and I believe that the majority of hon. Members will agree—that subsequent generations have become much less concerned about this aspect.
There have been frequent suggestions that we should hand over to the Inland Revenue the task of operating any and every form of means test on the basis of the Income Tax returns. Indeed, as long ago as 1963 the Labour Party's policy document "New Frontiers to Social Security" promised an income guarantee scheme operated by "a simple tax return", and
without any form of means test other than that accepted by every taxpayer in the land.
It is interesting to note that both the Minister without Portfolio and the right hon. Member for Sowerby returned recently to that theme.
It is attractive, but I must admit that I have certain reservations about it. Let us take the case of the supplementary benefit. How can any system of this sort cope with the time factor? Tax is assessed annually, whereas in the case of supplementary benefit the assessment is on a weekly basis. How can sudden needs be dealt with—for example, the need for a special fuel or clothing allowance? There would be the added complication in some cases of sharp income fluctuations. Those of us who deal with our Income Tax returns know that the Inland Revenue is already grossly overloaded. Again, we must face the fact that many people would fill in the form only to get nothing in return, and that would be bound to cause a good deal of disappointment, particularly for old people, who in any case find it difficult to fill in forms. Of course, it may well be that in some cases the forms would never be completed.
For all those reasons I foresee great difficulties, for the present at any rate, in getting the Inland Revenue to operate all means tests on this basis. I am sure that the right hon. Lady has run up against this difficulty, and I should like to know whether she has found any solution of them.
Nevertheless, this must not stop us from trying to simplify and rationalise the present system by reducing the number of different tests and the number of bodies administering them. It might well be that the best solution would be to have one body or agency which would be responsible for the administration of all forms of means test, from supplementary benefit to school meals and university grants, and also the system of housing allowances which, I have suggested,


should replace the present housing subsidies.
Finally, and most important of all, I do not believe—and I think that the right hon. Lady in her heart also accepts this—that we shall get social justice either in the short term or the long term unless we are prepared to be more selective. We must face the fact that social services cannot be a free-for-all. I agree with Mr. Rudolph Klein, who, writing in the Observer on 25th June, referred to
the myth of the Welfare State that all services must be provided free, in other words, at the taxpayers' expense".
The National Plan, to which the right hon. Lady subscribed, estimated that the cost of the various cash benefits, including administration, would rise from £2,379 million in 1965–66 to £2,533 million in 1969–70 simply to keep pace with the growing number of pensioners and children. This made no allowance for any increase in benefits. The plan itself allowed for the total rise of these benefits to £2,920 million by 1969–70. It is clear that under the National Plan £387 million was to be available for benefit increases. Of this sum already £80 million has been used up in wage-related unemployment and sickness benefits. A further £230 million will be used up under this Bill. Taking account of the £50 million or more which was the net cost of the Ministry of Social Security Act of last year, clearly, the money allocated under the National Plan has already been almost used up, but in addition the 4 per cent. annual growth rate envisaged under the Plan has now apparently been abandoned, and, in any case, for two years there has been hardly any economic growth at all. So the cupboard must be pretty bare, and this explains why the right hon. Lady does not come forward with her policies, and it means that ways must be found to try to be more selective in the social services.
The same is true of social services expenditure as a whole. Mr. Peter Jay pointed out in The Times on 31st May:
It seems that total social services expenditure at constant prices will rise by more than 60 per cent. over the decade 1965 to 1975 merely in order to keep pace with current policies.
That is what we are talking about. That is why we are talking about selectivity. We are not taking about a means test

under the contributory system. We are not talking about getting rid of the present system, except in so far as it can be taken over by better and juster policies. What we are talking about is how we can use our scarce resources for the best results for the greatest majority of our people. This is not something to get sentimental about. It is a matter for hard-headed realism; it is a matter for proper argument; it is a matter for proper debate without any raking up of old scores and arguments of the past.
The solution to this cannot be by increasing taxation. This, again, is something we all accept. If we are to get increased resources we must have incentives to economic growth, and the Chancellor and all those on the Treasury Bench accept this. So it cannot come from increased taxation.
We are critical of this Bill because once again opportunities have been lost of bringing real help to those who are most in need. We on this side of the House believe that we must be more selective in the social services, selective in such ways as replacing the present housing subsidy attached to the house by an allowance payable to families in need, by making fair and sensible charges for use of the health services, by giving extra help in family allowances only to the families who are in need. At the same time we must find a way to use effectively the enormous fund of good will and compassion which exists in our society—the many people who would like to help in the provision of care for the elderly and families in need, and who do not know how to set about it but who would respond to a definite lead. We want to see a community task force which would harness the good will and energies of people of all types in service for the community. We want to see local authorities being much more dynamic in their approach to community services and community renewal, more dynamic in using voluntary effort to initiate and extend practical local welfare services, projects which will plug the gaps, and root out the ugly and degrading, and seek the prevention of new social ills.
We are living in a machine age, and, no doubt, as times goes on, more and more of the jobs formerly done by people will be done by machines. This is a good thing,


but it is all the more reason why we should guard against the machine-line impersonalised approach. There is not and never will be a machine which can be a substitute for the good health visitor or even the home help. These people cost money and we should find more ways of bringing more people into the service.
We support this Bill for what it does to restore the purchasing power of our present benefits. We support it for that reason and we welcome it for that reason, but we censure the Minister and the Government for once more failing to meet both the needs and the spirit of our people.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: I am glad of this Bill which provides for increased benefits for those who come within the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Act and also provides for increased benefits for those under the old Workmen's Compensation Act and war pensioners. In addition to this we have in the Bill an increase in supplementary allowances by way of constant attendance allowance, unemployability allowance, and hardship allowance, and further we have the assurance of my right hon. Friend that at an early date we shall have regulations to adjust supplementary benefits.
I take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend on bringing forward such a comprehensive Measure, covering, as it does, so many aspects of social life, and affecting, as it does, pensioners, industrially injured, the disabled, the old workmen's compensation cases, widows and allowances. I am glad that, in spite of the fact that we have not yet fully recovered from our economic difficulties, she has been able to come forward with a Measure of this kind.
I have held the view for many years that if the people of this country can get the assurance that in the event of accidents, in the event of disease or sickness, they will have adequate security, they will have removed from them to a large extent their worry and anxiety. Indeed, we as Members of Parliament often used to say, "What are we going to get as pension after spending years in this House?" It is a problem which does arise. The younger men I have dealt with in matters pertaining to industrial injuries, men of 21 and 22, thought

the time seemed far away when they would have need of this security. When one has met them after some years one finds they scratch their heads and ask, "What will the pension be? What will be my position in the future?"
This question of social security is priority No. 1. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is priority No. 1. The test of any Government and the test of this House, in the last analysis, will be how we treated the infirm, the sick and disabled. It is because of this that I am glad that my right hon. Friend has brought forward a Measure which at least increases the rates of benefit above, in some cases at least, the cost of living.
I readily agree that the whole of our National Insurance Scheme requires remodelling. We want a reappraisal of the whole National Insurance Scheme and Industrial Injuries Act. It requires reorganising completely. It has been in operation for many years, and the time has now come when we must look more closely at the changing conditions.
Industry is changing and social conditions are changing. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) first introduced the National Insurance Act, conditions were very different from those of today. The standard of living has improved, and conditions generally are much better than they were then. We must therefore build on the original National Insurance Act in order to deal with many of the problems that are now arising.
Having said that, I must add that it amazed me to listen to the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike). She is among those who were in power for 13 years but from whom we never had a suggestion that it was intended to reorganise National Insurance legislation. I am glad to see present with us the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He was Minister of Pensions at one time, and has vast knowledge of the subject. He came forward, as my right hon. Friend has done, with increased benefits to try and keep pace with the then cost of living. The hon. Lady now seeks to tell us what should have been done, but in this respect the record of the party opposite is poor. In the original Act, the woman without children whose husband died when she was 40 years of age or just over had a


pension, and it was the party opposite that increased the age to 50 before pensions were payable. So what is the hon. Lady talking about now?
Some hon. Members opposite talk about poverty among children, but this brings in the question of unemployment benefit. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly was in office, unemployment benefit was continuous in that if the Ministry of Labour could not put a man in suitable work he continued to get his benefit. Then the party opposite based it on the, contributory principle, so that a man did not get benefit after he had been out of work for 19 months. That acts very harshly on a disabled man, who finds it more and more difficult to get work. There are today a large number of disabled men who after 19 months have found it impossible to get a job. Because benefit is based on contribution they no longer get it, and have to seek supplementary benefit. That is only one aspect of poverty.
Reference has been made to the use of family allowances to relieve child poverty, but before we go into that let us look at what basically creates poverty—unemployment, the younger widow and all the other aspects. The time has come when we must reorganise the social security system. My right hon. Friend has told us that this is a big job, and so it is. The party opposite could not do it in 13 years, but we are expected to alter the whole system when we have been in power for less than three years. Changing conditions make a review necessary.
Constant attendance allowance and unemployability allowance apply only to the industrially injured or to the war pensioner. The man who is disabled and bedridden because of pneumoconiosis is in a very bad way and gets constant attendance allowance, which the Bill increases up to £6. But the man who is bedridden from natural causes does not get the allowance. Such differences as these must be remedied.
A man who is unemployable because of industrial injury or industrial disease can be paid unemployability allowance, but if he is just disabled by sickness or by natural causes the allowance is not payable. In this respect, too, I know that my right hon. Friend agrees that we must reorganise and remodel the whole basis of the National Insurance Scheme.
Much has been said about poverty, but I do not believe that the State can always pull us out of our difficulties, or that we must go to the National Insurance Scheme every time. After all, where is the poverty and what is its cause? The main cause of poverty is low wages. However much we may increase family allowances, it should be remembered that there are day-wage men in the mining industry who take home £11 a week or less. I do not dispute that family allowances will be of benefit but even with increased family allowances there will be poverty because the men will get, perhaps, £13 a week. Can a man with a family live on £13 a week? We know that he cannot, so we must look at the problem of low wages.
I do not always agree with our friend Frank Cousins of the Transport and General Workers' Union, but I agree that there should be a national minimum wage. No man should go home with less than £14 or £15 a week. Differential rates cause great discontent. If we fix a better minimum wage we can the better apply ourselves to some parts of the National Insurance legislation, but supplementing wages by the National Insurance Scheme will not solve the problem of poverty. I therefore hope that the National Board for Prices and Incomes and other people will appreciate that poverty can best be grappled with by increasing wages.
The hon. Lady the Member for Melton took between 35 and 40 minutes to race through a brief, and made certain statements that were very difficult to follow, but I must tell her once again that she and her hon. and right hon. Friends, in 13 years of power, never suggested reorganising the Acts. Today we are only repeating what was done by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. He brought forward measures, I say it in justice to him, for increased Cates of benefits of various sorts, and he was criticised for it. We are getting the same criticism today. It is true that the proposed increases in this Bill are a little more than the increase in the cost of living, but the day has come when we must reorganise the National Insurance set-up.
Let us go forward and build on the basis laid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly many years ago. If this debate serves that purpose, it has been worth while.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Lady, at the beginning of her clear and, except in its inevitable peroration, agreeable speech, referred to this "short debate". But let me say at once what an outrage I think it is on the House of Commons that we should be asked to deal with a National Insurance Bill in a debate in which, by the time the first two speakers had concluded, less than two hours was available for all the back bench speakers and for the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who may be winding up. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) referred to the time when I had certain responsbilities in this sphere, and I can say that this was not the way in which we used to treat National Insurance debates.
This subject affects everyone of our constituents. It is monstrous that the Leader of the House, who, when in opposition, would have raised the biggest row of all if this had been suggested by the then Government, should allow three hours in all for this debate. This is underlined, and the Government's curious sense of proportion illustrated, by the fact that, at ten o'clock, there will be put a Motion for an unlimited suspension for the homosexuals Bill. This is an astonishing sense of proportion.
The Government's own National Insurance Bill, affecting everyone in the country, gets three hours, but there is to be an unlimited suspension for what is still pretended to be a Private Member's Bill. I do not blame the right hon. Lady. I am sure that she did her best. But this is not treatment for which the House will lightly forgive the Leader of the House.
The Press has given the right hon. Lady's Bill something of a basting. The Daily Telegraph had a brilliant article taking it to pieces and so did most of the Press—almost always on the point to which she herself rightly devoted a good deal of her speech, the absence of selectivity. The fact remains that she is drawing some hundreds of millions of pounds from what is, unhappily, a static national product, without giving any guarantee whatever that she is going to overcome the main strategic centres of poverty.
This Bill will be, in this respect a dispersion of forces as ineffective as all

the efforts of the Egyptian Army in the last few weeks. I agree with a good deal of what the right hon. Lady said about selectivity. There are plainly limits to the extent one could introduce it into the contributory part of the social security system. On the other hand, it is possible to introduce it into the contributory part in respect of certain broad categories of beneficiary who can be thought in general to have special degrees of need.
I have heard the hon. Member for Bedwellty, who speaks with great authority, many times on this subject and he has taken me personally to task for not having done this when I had the honour to occupy the office of Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. He is wrong and I will remind the House of what I suggest offers a precedent to what the right hon. Lady should now do and extend.
I took the view at the time, and I think that the House supported me, that the person in greatest need was the widow with a number of children. Therefore, every time we increased the National Insurance benefits, we increased the provision made for the widow's children and, therefore, for her household, quite out of proportion to the increases we were making across the board. The net result was that, whereas at the end of the Conservative Government in 1964 the real value of the general benefits of the scheme was 50 per cent. up from the level we inherited in 1951, in the case of a widow with three children, for example, it was up 100 per cent.
I suggest that the right hon. Lady should build on that and bring in further categories. First I suggest that it is the very old, as my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) argued—say, those over 75—who are such a category that is in the greatest need. They have special needs. There is increasing physical weakness, increasing inability to look after oneself, things wearing out, inability to do even a modest amount of work.
I think that the right hon. Lady will find in her Department evidence to support the claim that the greatest hardship among pensioners is among the very old.
I see no reason why, just as we stepped up the provisions for the widowed mother and her children over and above the extent to which we stepped up the other benefits, the right hon. Lady should not do so for the very old pensioner.
One other category are those who, in the rather bleak language of the Department, are described as the long-term sick—the hopelessly crippled and disabled who will never work again. I have a gallant lady in my constituency who suffers the ghastly disease of multiple sclerosis, which she endures with the utmost courage. She only draws the ordinary standard sickness benefit, which may be adequate for the short-term sickness of someone in regular work but is a poor foundation for a life of increasing disability and inability to work. Here again, there is a case for greater selectivity, whether we call it, as has been suggested, constant attendance allowance or unemployability supplement or something else, borrowed from the war pension scheme, does not matter. But it is certainly a form of selectivity that we should adopt.
I want to pick up the hon. Member for Bedwellty again in his claim that we did not do anything about selectivity. I recall, again from my own experience, that we also increased the family allowance for the third and subsequent child to 10s. as compared with 8s. for the second child. That selectivity was outside the contributory range. It is a sort of selectivity that this Bill does not include.
The Bill is more noticeable for its omissions than for its contents. It is a rather sad aftermath to the prolonged thoughts of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), and the rather less effective brooding of the Minister Without Portfolio. It is a far cry from National Superannuation, half pay on retirement and all those other delightful ideas that right hon. and hon. Members opposite dangled before our fellow countrymen at the polls. There is omission after omission of that kind. But one omission gives me pleasure. This is that the right hon. Lady has omitted any steps to interfere with the scheme of graduated contributions and pensions introduced in the National Insurance Act, 1959.
That is curious. The House will recall what right hon. and hon. Members opposite said about that scheme. The

right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, straining to its limits the resources of a Wykehamist vocabulary, described it as a "swindle". The word even crept into the Labour Party's election manifesto. I am glad to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary here. He will recall that in February last year he told us:
We said it was a swindle perpetrated upon the people of this country and we have so far found no evidence throughout the whole of our term of office to alter our opinion about that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 135.]
If the hon. Gentleman and the Minister really meant that, why are they not altering it? Why are they putting themselves in the position of drawing revenues from a scheme which they described as a swindle and building up pension rights under it? Why are they not, when they have the power, raising a finger to alter it? They have been in office for nearly three years. The hon. Member for Belwellty thought that it seemed longer. It certainly seems so to the country.
The Government have now got a majority of 100 and it is nearly 18 months since the Parliamentary Secretary said that. If they do mean to be taken seriously in describing a scheme in these terms as a swindle, is it not their duty to alter it and not to draw their payments under it and continue to do so on an ever increasing scale? There is a test of the sincerity of the party opposite.
If this is an acknowledgment that this is a sound scheme, every penny of which goes in payment of pension benefits, then it is very sensible of them to continue it and, having had something to do with it, I welcome that. However, I hope this means that we shall not hear any more of this calculated hypocrisy of trying to besmear a scheme which is serving this country well and which the right hon. Lady admits to be so doing by continuing it in force.
If she again accuses me of having in this way perpetrated a swindle, I will remind her of the words of the late Lord Birkenhead, "To a man of spirit the receiver of stolen property is a degree more contemptible than the original thief."
I want to say a word about the extraordinary Clause 5. There is no effective provision in the Bill or in the Clause to improve family allowances. There is no obligation imposed on the Government to make any increase at all. The words, and I recall them with a certain feeling of irony, are,
… may with the consent of the Treasury …
The right hon. Lady may do this; there is no guarantee that she will.
It is quite extraordinary. Every previous Government which has improved family allowances has brought that precise proposal before this House and asked it to decide it. The right hon. Lady is merely asking for this power. Of course, we know why this is. We know that the right hon. Lady wants to do something and the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want to do anything. The Cabinet is split on it, but there is nothing novel about that, because the Cabinet is split on everything.
Then there is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio, who was here a short time ago, with his habitual air of a recently orphaned bloodhound, brooding completely ineffectively over it. He does not even bark. This is the reason, and it is a very bad way to treat the House of Commons.
The Clause is a very bad Clause. The right hon. Lady is not only seeking to take power to increase family allowances; she is also seeking to take power to reduce other allowances paid in respect of children under the National Insurance schemes. I recall no precedent—I hope I am wrong—for giving a Minister power to reduce allowances which this House has voted under the National Insurance scheme. This is a very wide and sweeping power to give the right hon. Lady.
If she does come forward with a proposal it is to be only subject to the negative procedure. It is most extraordinary that something which is normally the subject matter of legislation is now to be dealt with under the negative procedure. The right hon. Lady may say, "I may want to do it in the Recess". If the right hon. Lady has it in mind it should be done now instead of putting the House in the hopeless position that if we think what she pro-

poses to do is inadequate, as it may well be, all we should be able to do is to reject it so that the children get nothing. This is utterly unsatisfactory and must be looked at in Committee.
Then there is the extraordinary provision that though the orders are not made they are revoked in advance as from next April. That is an astonishing proceeding. Why? I suppose it is because the right hon. Lady wants to tie this up with some sort of tax "fiddle" of the Chancellor's. I hope that she is not going to finance these proposals by increasing the taxation on other families. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me if I say that if there is to be additional taxation it should be on bachelors and spinsters.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: Why?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because—my hon. Friend has declared his interest—everybody knows that the family at all levels of society carries a very heavy financial burden compared with single people in similar positions. If this is to be financed out of taxation it should not be financed by transferring the burden as between families.
These are extraordinary provisions, revoked before they are made, with no power to compel the right hon. Lady to make them, subject only to the negative procedure. This is absolutely unprecedented, giving the right hon. Lady power, which none of her predecessors ever sought, over the interests of the beneficiaries of the scheme, and all for the squalid reason that the Government cannot make up their minds what it is they want to do.
When the right hon. Lady is on pension herself, when she is a charming old lady in retirement, I think that she will look back on this Bill as her great missed opportunity. It seems easy in the second year of a Parliament and the third year of a Government to think that there is plenty of time. But time moves very quickly for a Government and is the lifeblood of a Government. Very soon, the right hon. Lady will be in the position where the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House will be saying that there is no time for complicated legislation.
Here the right hon. Lady is, in the second year of this Parliament, with a majority of 100 and all these opportunities missed. I think that she may well reflect on those wise words of Kipling's:
Day-spring mishandled cometh not again.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: A great deal has been spoken today by hon. Members opposite about what was done in their term of office. I have checked on the figures. I do not want to make great play with them, but during the 13 years that they were in office there was a. total increase to single people of 37s. 6d. and to married couples of 59s. So far, under the Labour Administration, including the proposed increases which we are discussing, the total increase to a single person will be 22s. 6d. and to married couples 37s. I can well understand that the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) did not want to give our scheme too much praise.
Before I came to the House, I can remember moving a Motion as a member of the Borough Council of Willesden suggesting that there should be a pension increase. It was some time in 1962 or 1963. The very next day, I happened to see my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), who said that he had come from the House, where M.P.s were debating the same subject, and that the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, had put forward all the possible arguments why there should not be an increase.
The hon. Member for Melton conceded the point that the number of retired people receiving supplementary benefits has increased. It has increased, and the House should be pleased that a group of people desperately in need of a few little extras are now receiving them. There is no element of charity in it. In a Written Reply last year, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there were approximately 1,200,000 pensioners receiving supplementary benefits. The position at the moment is that 1,600,000 are receiving them. This is an excellent step forward, and I am very pleased about it.
During the short time in which I have had the honour to be the Member of Parliament for Croydon, South, I have made the point time and time again in speeches and letters to the local Press that retired people entitled to supplementary benefits and not receiving them should not hesitate to claim them. I hope that many more will claim who are entitled to the supplementary benefits but are not claiming them at present.
I am pleased that the pension increase is taking place. There is a great debate going on not only between the two parties, but inside them, about whether increases in welfare benefit should be universal or selective. I do not want to deal with that aspect tonight, because I want to concentrate mainly on the difficulties of elderly retired people, but I am not in favour of the idea that the old age pension should remain more or less frozen and that all that should take place are supplementary increases for those most in need. Over a period of time the basic old-age pension should be increased. That is why I am happy that we are discussing increases of 10s. and 16s. tonight.
It is interesting that the trade union—for that is what it is—which is responsible for pensioners, the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners, has insisted time and time again that the basic pension should be increased over a period of time. I hope that the local branches of the National Federation will be happy with the increases which we are discussing.
I sometimes think that it may be very difficult for people of my generation to understand what it means for retired people to try to live on a very limited budget. Fortunately, I have never had to do so. I have never had to face the sort of poverty which so many of my constituents must face day in and day out. I do not wish to appear to preach to the House, or to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, but there must be occasions when even hon. Members find it difficult to understand how pensioners on a very small budget meet all kinds of difficulties when they buy odds and ends which they have not budgeted for, items which we take for granted, such as underwear and other clothing and shoe repairs. For the pensioner with a very small income they form a deviation from the normal budget which cause them a great


deal of hardship and difficulties in making ends meet.
People who have not had to face poverty themselves have difficulty in understanding the plight of our fellow citizens who are living in poverty mainly because they are retired and no longer working. I decided to try to find out the position of some of the pensioners in my constituency. I did not consider it necessary to make a constituency survey, but I spoke to some of the people responsible for the welfare of the pensioner. In my hand I have the budget of a single pensioner and a married couple. The single person has a budget of about £6 a week, and this is how it is constituted: rent and rates, £ 1 15s.; repairs and decorations, 10s.; fuel and light, £1; clothing and shoes, 5s. 6d.; food, £1 10s. I hope that it is more, for that is only about 4s. a day. The budget continues: fares, 4s.; television rental and licence, 9s.; and pensioner's outing club, 3s. 6d.
The married couple has a combined income of £10 13s., some of which comes from the supplementary benefit. Their budget is: rent, £2 13s.; repairs £1; gas, electricity, coal and oil, £1 11s.; clothing and laundry £1 5s.; television and radio 15s.; fares 5s.; milk and food, including a special diet, £3 4s. In a special note on this piece of paper, which I received over the weekend, they say, "We have to watch every single penny".
What must be depressing for so many retired people is the knowledge that they are not only living in poverty and near-poverty, but that they will remain in it for the rest of their days. The only possibility of help is an increase in the pension or supplementary benefit. It must be terribly depressing to realise that day after day, for as long as one lives, one will never get out of the poverty rut.
This is why I am so pleased that in the short time since they took office the Labour Government have increased the general pension and brought the supplementary benefit into existence. Those who argue so strongly for selective benefits should bear in mind what happened last November, when we introduced the minimum income of £7 2s., plus rent and rates for a married couple, and £4 10s. plus rent and rates for a single person.
But I am also aware of the poverty of other sections of the community. Some of my hon. Friends want to deal with the poverty of young people, for the House has a responsibility not only to the elderly but to the very young. In my own small way I have tried to argue in favour of a minimum wage of £15 a week. I have tabled two Questions and I hope to chance my luck with an Adjournment debate on the need for a minimum wage. It can be seen, therefore, that I am well aware of the difficulty of those who earn small sums and have large families.
I am particularly concerned about people receiving supplementary benefits who may not get the total increase. I am not sure what the position is. I remember that when the National Assistance Board's operations were in existence pensioners who were on National Assistance did not get the overall increase. Will pensioners receiving supplementary benefits get the overall increase on this occasion? I ask that question because these pensioners, who are obviously in most need, should get the total increase of 10s. and 16s. I know that in theory they will all get the pension increase, but if there is any deduction from the supplementary benefit which they receive from the Ministry of Social Security they will not get the overall increase. I hope that we shall have a positive reply to that question from the Parliamentary Secretary.
My speech was intended to be very brief. It was not meant to go into the wider questions of poverty or selective benefits. We have a duty and responsibility in the House constantly to be aware of the sections of the community most in need. The House humiliates itself when it forgets those most in need, whether they be retired elderly people desperately trying to make ends meet or those living in poverty because they do not earn enough money and whose children are brought up in poverty. With limited economic growth, we shall not do all that we want to do in a short time. One of the main reasons why we are here is to overcome the poverty with which so many people are accursed and to create a better society in which poverty is one of the nightmares of the past.

Mr. John Pardoe: I had hoped to be able to welcome the Bill,


but there is very little time for any of us either to welcome it or attack it. I had hoped that we would have adequate time to welcome it and that it might be the end product of the Government's often announced review of the social security system. I had hoped that we might find in it some inkling that there had been a thorough-going review going on and that the pockets of poverty which we heard so much about were not simply the pockets of intellectual poverty in the Government's thinking process.
I regard this as a thoroughly miserable Bill. I do not welcome any part of it, except the meagre increases given in it. Absolutely nothing has been done to recast the system. There is nothing in the Bill, and there was nothing in the Minister's speech, to indicate that there will be a recasting of the system. I am not throwing the brick-bats which have been passed backwards and forwards across the House. Nobody, fortunately enough, can blame the Liberal Administration for their record in social security. I should think that people could only praise it. I admit that one of our problems is to escape from the magnificent work of that great Liberal, Lord Beveridge, and this debate, short as it is, may help to take us some way along that road.
I oppose the proposed increases because they are inadequate. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) said that he did not understand how people could live on these very low pensions. I entirely agree with him. I cannot understand how people will make ends meet even on the new pension of £7 6s. for a married couple. What I want from the Government is some idea that they are aiming at a realistic level of old-age pension. I accept that they may not be able to afford them here and now, but I would like an announcement that they have in mind an idea of the level which they regard as satisfactory. It must not be stated in money terms. It must inevitably be stated in terms of average earnings in the country.
The aim should be that pension must be linked to average earnings and should go up when average earnings rise, so that the old people get an automatic share in the increased wealth of the country. These levels should be one-half the average male earnings for a married

couple and one-third for a single person. That would give an old age or retirement pension for a married couple of about £10 to £11 a week. I accept that that cannot be done overnight, and not even within three years, but it could be stated as the Government's aim, and I hope in the very near future to see an indication that that is so.
I oppose not only the increases in the benefits, but I oppose the increases in the contributions still more. I believe that the Government have again made the vital mistake of clinging to the contributory system. The Minister spent a considerable time in defending the contributory principle. I am sorry, but I do not accept one word of her defence of it, because the contributory system as we have it is a poll tax. It is a poll tax in the sense that it affects the poor and the richt alike. Even though we have the fraudulent and swindling graduated pension scheme, which to a certain extent relates contributions to earnings, nevertheless it is still basically true that contributions in our pension scheme are a poll tax.
Why not go over to a non-contributory scheme? What is so wrong with it? A contributory system is far less distributivist than a system based on taxation. It is extremely important to isolate the money which we apply for the scheme from the Government's general expenditure, which is what contributions do. One can do it perfectly well, however, by a social security tax, which would be related to incomes, which could perhaps be levied, as I hope it would be, as a payroll tax as a percentage of an employer's payroll, with the employer paying two-thirds and the employee one-third. It would be easy to collect, it would be a dynamic tax and it would rise as earnings increased. It could be devoted solely to paying for the social security system. The great thing is that it must not be raided for east of Suez follies or any other machinations of Governments, either the present one or their successors.
I turn briefly to the question of the means test, which has become all the rage in the Press and, I fear, is very much the rage and the "in" thing on both sides of the House. It is almost impossible to escape from the jargon of universalism, discriminatory benefits and the rest. Indeed, it seems that no radical


politician who wishes to retain his self-respect can resist jumping on the band wagon.
I do not oppose the means test in principle, and I do not think that there are many hon. Members who in principle are opposed to it. Even the Labour Party accepts our progressive taxation system, which is a means test. Again, many people in the Labour Party advocate a means test for housing subsidies, and I would certainly go along with that.
When, however, the Conservative Party advocate the discriminatory payments of social security benefits, they are being less than straightforward. The Tories pretend that they want less welfare to go to those who do not need it and more to go to those who do need it. What they mean, I suspect, is that they want less welfare. Behind the mask of the means test the Tories hide their real purpose, which is to cut public expenditure at all costs. Their attitude to public expenditure is pathological. It is never seen as more roads, or more houses, or more hospitals. It is just seen as some gigantic science fiction octopus grasping the nation in its tentacles.
For all their righteous prating, the Tories see the means test not as a way of giving more to the poor but as a way of giving less to exerything public. There are those who gaily refuse to accept that there are difficulties in testing means. They orate in somewhat Old Testament terms about the iniquities of council tenants who live on £30 to £40 a week, implying that this is all part of some wicked Socialist conspiracy to destroy the moral fibre of the nation and ending up with a crying appeal to give more to those who really need and stop giving away the nation's birthright to a load of spivs and charlatans. This mixes strangely with the Conservative Party's attitude to the proposals to change the system of family endowment.
I should have thought that it was a good Tory principle to say that we want to use the £500 million which is presently used in tax allowances for families to give more to those who really need it and less to those who do not, but for some unknown reason at this point the Conservative enthusiasm for the principle cools off notably—I can only suppose because the

Tories realise that it will affect the pockets of those who give them their support.
I am not talking about millionaires who do not need this money. I am talking about myself, because the State pays me the best part of £200 for my family of three children. The tax allowances for my children are worth about £47 10s. at the standard rate, each child. The family allowances which my wife and I get for the second and third of our children are worth approximately the same amount for the two of them together. Therefore, although I, with a perfectly adequate Parliamentary salary, am being paid £200 a year by a very generous State for the benefit of having three children, somebody in my constituency who is trying to bring up three children on perhaps £10 a week is getting less than £50 a year given to him by the State for doing so. This seems to me to be absolutely crazy.
In following along the principle of giving more to those who really need it and less to those who do not, I say to myself, "Rearrange the system so that some part of that £200 which the State pays to me goes to those who really do need". We can play around with the taxes of spinsters and bachelors if we like. We might well help out the endowment scheme by this means. I am convinced that this is the way forward.
I hope that the Minister will not be deterred by remarks which have been made today from the Conservative benches. I hope that when she brings the scheme forward later this month it will be along the lines which I proposed at last year's Liberal Party Assembly, which have been adopted by the Child Poverty Action Group, and which, when I raised the matter last time in the House, drew from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the comment, "Anything the Liberal Party can do we", meaning himself, "can do better." I hope that that song will at last see the light of day later this month.
There are severe disadvantages in using the P.A.Y.E. system to give some form of means test. One of the reasons why I say this—it sounds all very easy, especially when the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) talks about banks of computers, as he does in his recently published pamphlet—is that there is hardly a Conservative Member


who does not honestly believe in his heart that the progressive P.A.Y.E. system is a disincentive to effort. We are always being told this. Many of us probably believe it. Recently, when a council in my constituency proposed a rent rebate scheme, I was involved in the row that transpired and which always transpires on such occasions. It came across to me very forcefully that the man who is discouraged from doing any overtime at all by the idea of paying 6s. 5d. in the £ on his overtime is far more discouraged when he realises that by doing his overtime, or by his wife going out to work as a waitress in an hotel during the summer season, he will have to pay a higher rent. Thus, if it is a disincentive in our Income Tax, it is a disincentive when it is applied to granting help.
While I accept that it would be honest to have some form of discriminatory payments, to believe that we can discover some way of finding out where the pockets of poverty lie, so that we can find out where to apply the money, is a pipe dream, not because people do not accept the principle—many may not, many may have severe reservations about it—but because even those who accept the principle must admit that the practicality of it is not there.
It is no good people coming to the House of Commons, or going into the country, and talking in the old clichés about "we really must look at this"—and I say this with a non-party attitude—and all the rest of the rigmarole that we get, particularly from the Conservative benches. It is no good their saying this. If they want the House to accept the means test, they must come forward with a practical solution. I hope that they will do so, but at the moment there is not one on the horizon.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: Throughout his speech I suspected that the vigorous delivery of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) rather concealed the fact that he was very much more in sympathy with this side of the House than with some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I confess that on one matter I find myself wholeheartedly in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. This is in his regret

that it has not been possible in the Bill to provide larger increases than have proved possible, and it is for this reason that I confess to some disappointment with both the other speeches from the benches opposite. They dutifully and if I may say do ably, trotted out the predictable arguments against the Bill, but ignored the fact that my right hon. Friend had already dealt with those arguments, that she had faced them squarely and answered them.
My right hon. Friend said that if there is only a limited amount of cloth, one has to decide what kind of coat to cut. During the last three years the Government have been dealing with a crisis not of their own making, and in the process they were determined that the elderly, the sick, and the unemployed would not be the sufferers. As my right hon. Friend said, the Government were determined to keep faith with them.
If it is proposed by the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) that certain other provisions should be made selectively for other categories, unless she can show where the additional money will come from, the only conclusion to which she must be driven is that she regrets that the beneficiaries mentioned in the Bill are to be benefit as they will. If this is the case put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they should say so honestly to the nation.
Having said that, I am bound to concede that I have a certain sympathy with the feeling that when future benefits are available, when it becomes possible to dispense perhaps a larger measure of generosity, it will be dispensed with some degree of selectivity, something which I understand is already in my right hon. Friend's mind. The question which then appears to confront us is whether the selectivity should be a means test, or whether, in the words of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), it should be categories. The right hon. Gentleman made his position clear.
It seems that there are those to whom the future policy of the Conservative Party is committed are equally clear, because in a report by the Young Conservatives, published in September of last year, entitled, "Social security in the


'Seventies", the chapter on pensions and social security says:
If we take the community's role to be that of ensuring a basic minimum level of security".
This is where we on this side of the House immediately join issue with them. And, of course, they are led to conclude that such benefits, as child benefits, maternity benefits, and family allowances should be paid subject to a means test.
I listened carefully to the hon. Lady the Member for Melton, hoping that she would let us know on which side of the fence she came down. I was still wondering at the end of her speeech, but her reference to low income families caused me to come to the conclusion that she came down on the side of the means test. If that is the proposal it will meet with little sympathy from this side of the House. I would be very unhappy about a means test, for at least four reasons.
First, a means test penalises hard work and thrift. I am always rather surprised that those who are most ready to speak of a means test in this connection speak so much more vigorously of the need for incentives when rates of Income Tax are under discussion. It seems that the incentives provided in respect of low-income families is fear that they will be driven to a means test. The argument appears to be that the rich will not work unless you make them and the poor will not work unless you make them poorer.
The second reason is that we already have a plethora of means tests. Some families are submitting to as many as ten. This afternoon I tried to persuade my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that a family, one member of which had already proved entitlement to free school meals, should not be asked to establish, independently, entitlement to welfare foods. A strong feeling exists among Members on both sides of the House that we do not want more means tests.
The third reason why I am unhappy about the prospects of a means test is that it exacerbates the problem of non-take-up. No family which believes that it is entitled to benefits will willingly contemplate submitting to a further means test, particularly when the forms involved nearly always begin, in jet black letters,

with a warning about the dire consequences of any mis-statements. It is enough to put the fear of God into people before they start.
The fourth reason is that, all too often, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North has said, a means test is not a method of redirecting resources; it is a method of cutting down benefits which already exist. It is an excuse.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that some of us hope that the time will soon come when some of the selective principles in reverse which already operate, and to which these increases are still subject, will be looked at. The first and obvious one is the wage-stop. I accept the reasons for this, but it seems unfortunate, to put it at its lowest, that a family which already, when the breadwinner was in full employment, had too little to live on, should for that reason continue to have too little to live on when the breadwinner ceases to be in employment.
The second is contained in Section 13(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1946—a Section to which I have ventured to draw my right hon. Friend's attention in the past. I make no apology for raising the subject now. I appreciate the enormous pressures to which any Minister is subject, especially a Minister holding my right hon. Friend's high office, but it appears to be not a reason for sympathising with her and easing off, but, rather, for continuing to apply pressures in the other direction. There was the character in one of Charlotte Bronte's books who said, "We must turn to Parliament to help us and if they say it is difficult we must shout all the louder because they will need all the more prodding to do something which is difficult."
Section 13(1) of the 1946 Act provides that a person who has become unemployed as a consequence of a trade dispute shall not receive benefit. The subsection proceeds, in a rather confusing series of negatives to say that, nevertheless, it may be payable if he does not belong to
… a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the stoppage, there were members employed at his place of employment any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute.
That means that if 100 men work at a certain place, one of whom belongs to a


union engaged in a trade dispute elsewhere, in consequence of which that place of employment comes to a stop, all the other 99 are deprived of their benefit. My right hon. Friend has promised to give her attention to this matter and I indicate only that we have not forgotten it—

Miss Herbison: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Royal Commission is examining this matter.

Mr. Archer: I had not forgotten that, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding me.
One other instance of discrimination in reverse is the fact that many beneficiaries who are most in need find that their benefit either runs out or is reduced because their contribution record has expired. For example, the long-term sick are just the people who need money, but discover that, because they were sick last year, they have not obtained the appropriate contribution record. This calls in question the whole contributory system. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and confess that it was with this part of her speech that I was not wholeheartedly in sympathy.
The alternative is not means-tested benefits, but to finance them from Income fax. Someone called this "letting the burden fall on the taxpayer", but surely that is the fairest way. I appreciate that there were arguments in favour of the contributory system at its inception—that it gave people a sense of responsibility because they related contributions to benefits, and a sense of entitlement instead of receiving charity, and that it set up a fund which was preserved against being eaten into by cuts—but the time has now come, perhaps, when these arguments have subsided. The nation's mood is prepared to accept a revision of this scheme and I hope that this will be considered by my right hon. Friend.
There are certainly categories which we would all wish to help, which suffer because of this. The obvious example is that of the elderly people who were too old to be brought into the contributory scheme. I know that they cannot be helped now, because it would be a breach of the contributory principle but surely this is a reason for at least considering getting rid of that principle. Another example is a widow who receives

benefits in respect of contributions by her late husband. If she remarries and her second husband does not obtain the necessary record of contributions, even if he dies on the wedding night her brief moment of matrimonial bliss will have cost her her pension. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this again.
I had hoped that there would be time to look at the principle of selectivity and some of the categories which we should help, and I know that some of my hon. Friends were anxious to consider the cases of children of families in poverty, elderly people, the chronic sick and invalids; I join those who regret that there was not more time to discuss the Bill's principle. I hope that if I end now, it will enable one more back bench Member to speak.
I am wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill. I accept with gratitude what is in it already, but look forward with some anxiety to the next.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I am glad that the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) mentioned the subject I wish to speak about in a short sharp attack on the Minister for the next five minutes for not including in the Bill old people who were excluded in 1948. She has had many warnings about this matter and I shall refer to the Answers she gave to me on 26th June.
The right hon. Lady told the House that there were 175,000 old people still surviving who were not included in the National Insurance Scheme in 1948 because they were above pension age. She said she could not do anything for them. She said that their average age was 85. The plea I make is for those who are getting on for 90 there should be a State pension as of right. It is a shocking confession for any Government to have to make. I agree that the Conservative Government did not do anything about this. I criticised them at the time for not doing it, but the present Government have now been in power for two and a half years and have had this matter drawn to their attention. They should do something about it, for obvious reasons very quickly, because of the age of these people.
The right hon. Lady knows that 75,000 of these non-pensioners have died since she took office and since I originally attempted to introduce a Private Member's Bill in 1965. The right hon. Lady says that to give them pensions would be giving money indiscriminately to people who have not contributed to the scheme. Of course they have not contributed; she knows that by law they are not allowed to contribute. They were prevented from contributing in 1948, so it is not a fair argument to say this when they were over age under the 1946 Act.
I do not believe that this is a serious point of principle to make when those concerned have reached the average age of 85. The State is subsidising retirement pensions. The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton said that we should get rid of the contributory principle. I do not go quite so far as that, but this principle is quite irrelevant in this case. The right hon. Lady further said that 400,000 more old people are now on supplementary pensions. That is a very good thing. There are more in receipt of more supplementary pension than before, but she knows that it is dodging the real argument to say that when talking about those who have not been allowed to contribute.
I asked the right hon. Lady if she knew how many of these non-pensioners over age 85 were affected by supplementary pensions and she said that she did not know. In the same breath in the exchange at Question Time she said that this proposal would mean giving £40 million to people some of whom may be very well off indeed. We have heard before the argument about millionaire pensioners, but how does she know that these people are well off? She does not know how many of these non-pensioners are on supplementary benefit. She has no register of those who are not on supplementary pensions. She has no information about it.
Why does she not adopt my suggestion of making a register of these non-pensioners? Although she says that it would mean giving £40 million to people including some who might be well off, she is giving £290 million to people who have been contributors and some of them may be well off. It is hardly a fair argument to say to those over 85 who

have not been allowed to contribute for 19 years that as they were not contributors they should have no pension. Things have changed in that time in terms of inflation.
On 26th June, the right hon. Lady said that hon. Members in various parts of the House asked her to be more selective in cases of need and that the pensions, if they were paid as I and others have suggested to these non-pensioners, would be indiscriminate. Why not be selective for people who are nearing 90 years of age? Are they to reach the age of 90 before she does something about this? She will be pressed throughout this Parliament about it. I hope that hon. Members opposite will be forced to vote again on this issue one of these days. Does the right hon. Lady wish that these people should die off before then?

Miss Herbison: It is just nonsense of the hon. Member to suggest that we are leaving them to die. The effect of the generous disregards in supplementary benefits and the different treatment of capital has made it possible for anyone who is really in need, with quite a large sum of capital, to have help. We have done everything possible to help them by the supplementary benefits scheme.

Mr. Neave: That is no answer at all. The right hon. Lady knows quite well that the claim is for a pension as of right in this case. She knows that it is a gross injustice simply to say that the supplementary pensions have been improved—as, indeed, they have—when it does not apply to perhaps more than half those we are talking about. That is no answer to the claim we are making.
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady tried to dodge the issue today. I hope that she will forget this Departmental line, will take a decision of her own and do justice in this case, because my hon. Friends will certainly continue to press her very hard indeed.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Paul Dean.

Mr. Paul Dean: Mr. Paul Dean (Somerset, North) rose—

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order. I have never before raised a point of order in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I do so now in order to seek your guidance. The Bill probably affects more of our constituents than any


other Bill likely to come before the House. We have had a situation in which the Front Bench spokesman from the Opposition took 38 minutes and the Front Bench spokesman for the Government took 28 minutes. We are now to have another 40 minutes devoted to Front Bench speakers. In these circumstances, is it always necessary for the Chair to call a Front Bench spokesman?

Mr. Speaker: I am in complete sympathy with the hon. Member. I understand that the facts are correct as he has stated them. I have down here in my notes 29 minutes for the first Front Bench speaker and 37 minutes for the second Front Bench speaker, so that he is roughly right, and he is also right in the time which Front Bench speakers are now about to take. But Mr. Speaker has no power in these matters. He must call a Front Bench speaker to open and close the debate if the Front Benches insist, in a short debate, on having two Front Bench speakers from each side of the House. Mr. Paul Dean.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: The whole House will be in sympathy with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) in the point which he raised, but the target at which he should aim his remarks is the Leader of the House, who has allowed so little time for a debate of this importance. It has been a debate in which we have had many interesting and thoughtful speeches on both sides of the House, and it is a pity that we have had so little time for hon. Members to develop these points. I ought to start by declaring a kind of interest and thanking the right hon. Lady for the increase in the war disability pension which I gather I shall receive in November. I do not know whether that is an example of selectivity.
The first point which emerged clearly from the right hon. Lady's speech is that we need about £200 million to restore the value of the pension and other benefits to the March, 1965 level. In other words, this is not an advance for pensioners; it merely restores a cut which has been brought about by price increases. The right hon. Lady admitted that about 7s. has been eroded from the increase which was given in March, 1965. By the time that the new increases come into opera-

tion, we shall have had further increases in prices, including an extra 2s. in the £ on electricity prices, and very little will be left of the increases in benefit. In other words, we shall be back, broadly speaking, to the position from which we started in March, 1965.
I know that the right hon. Lady quoted two sets of figures and showed that there has been a real increase in the value of these benefits if we take the last increase in addition to this, but she must realise that what matters to pensioners is whether their standard of living is rising or declining over a comparatively short period of time. They are not interested in what happened two and a half years ago. They are interested in what the pension is going to buy at the present moment. So I hope that she is not going to dwell on this argument, which has very little relevance to the pensioner.
We are talking, therefore, about a rescue operation to make good the decline in the standard of living of pensioners, a decline which has taken place during the last two and a half years. As such, of course, we welcome the Bill and support these proposals.
The cost is a very substantial one, an increase in contributions amounting to £217 million a year, an increase from the Exchequer contribution—in other words, from the taxpayers—amounting to £55 million. For the lower wage earner, the increase of 2s. on his weekly contribution is a very considerable additional burden. I looked up earlier the comments of the right hon. Lady and the comments of the present Leader of the House when contributions were put up by my right hon. Friends by 1s. There was a howl from their side of the House. Now they are putting up contributions by 2s.
This whole Bill, based as it is on the old traditional lines, is indeed a far cry from that day, 25th November, 1964, when the right hon. Lady moved the earlier Bill, her first Bill, and both she and her right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), formerly Minister without Portfolio, created the very strong impression that that would be the last Bill on these old, traditional lines, and that long before another pension increase would be required the whole of the arrangements would be reformed. And


yet we get another Bill on the traditional lines brought forward now.
We have heard a great deal about selectivity. The right hon. Lady called it a burning question. I wonder if she realised just how appropriate that word was; because, of course, it is no secret on this side of the House that there is a great deal of heat in the argument that is now going on in the Cabinet about what to do about selectivity and whether to act on it, and so it is a burning question for the Government.
She went on to say that selective benefits have an important part to play, but she said not one word about her idea of selectivity. She mentioned family allowances and a possibility here, and she mentioned housing subsidies and a possibility there, but she gave us no indication whatever of the meaning of selectivity within this field.
We believe that there is a growing feeling for it not only on this side of the House but also on her own side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby has shown this in a very effective way. The former Minister without Portfolio was talking the other day about the need to give priority to pockets of poverty. Here are two examples from her own side of the House as well as those which have come from this side in the argument that indiscriminate, across-the-board benefits are a barrier to progress in the social field as a whole, so that we get into the vicious spiral of not giving sufficient help to the needy and not responding sufficiently fast to new needs as they arise—that on the one side; and on the other side of the penny, and equally important, of a growing burden of taxation which makes it more difficult for people to provide for themselves even if they want to.
We shall never have a casualty service if we insist upon treating everyone as a casualty, and we shall never help the weak if we break the back of the strong by penal taxation. We shall never get social justice unless we encourage work, thrift and personal responsibility. Unless we do this we shall not have the means of fulfilling our social obligations. Surely this is becoming more clear, particularly under this Government, when we see the graph of development of social services

tending to decline and personal taxation rising at the same time.
It is a great pity that the right hon. Lady first put up and then spent a great deal of time knocking down the Aunt Sally that selectivity inevitably involves the means test. She spent a great deal of time on that argument, but my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) made it crystal clear that we on this side are not in favour of means testing National Insurance benefits. I am very surprised that the Minister should have spent so much time on this topic. It suggests to me the disturbing thought that she is not treating at all seriously the possibility of selectivity; that she is not really considering the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) of the possibility of introducing selectivity within the National Insurance framework itself. My right hon. Friend explained how he did that very thing with regard to widows, and that is just one example.
Serious consideration ought to be given to whether there is not a way in which other categories where need tends to be greater can be given help over and above the general increases. The very old have been mentioned in this connection, and that is a classical example. We strongly support the view that we must have a basic floor upon which people can be encouraged to build—a contributory floor—but the longer people have been in retirement the more difficult it is for them to maintain their standard of living: furniture wears out, clothes wear out, things become more difficult.
We owe a special debt to the older pensioners, because they were working during the 'twenties and 'thirties when it was exceedingly difficult to put money aside for old age, but we must recognise that conditions are changing and that younger pensioners and those in the latter years of their working life have had the opportunity of better earnings and a much greater chance of joining occupational pension schemes.
One has only to look at the figures to see that the contributions to occupational pension schemes now just about equal contributions made to the State scheme. They run at well over £1,000 million a year, and the pensions and other benefits being paid out are running at the very


substantial level of over £600 million a year. These are significant facts, and show that occupational schemes are becoming a major partner in means of provisions for old age.
This is a way in which the burden on the State of supplementary benefits should in time be reduced, but how much serious thought are the Government giving to it? We know of the state of uncertainty at present existing among those running occupational pension schemes. They have asked the Government on many occasions to tell them their future intentions for the National Insurance scheme. Until these people know that, it is difficult for them to plan ahead and do what the right hon. Lady mentioned—ensure better cover for widows. They cannot do that until they know what the State intends to do. So there is an obligation on the Minister to give a clear and early indication of intention.
There is also the question of transferability, frozen pension rights, portable pension rights—call it what one will. For months now—indeed, for well over two years—the Government have been considering this subject. Pressure on the Minister has come from both sides of the House, but nothing has happened. I hope that the Government spokesman tonight will tell us that the Government will be able to indicate their proposals for the future in regard to occupational pension schemes and transferability or freezing of pension rights.
Then there are the supplementary benefit arrangements. Here, surely, we have the classic example of selectivity against the poorest in the community. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) mentioned this point. He asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the simple question of what will be the position of those on supplementary benefits under the Bill and the other proposals which are being brought forward for supplementary pensions.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that, when pensioners were receiving the old National Assistance supplements, the total pension was reduced. They did not get the overall pension increase but only two-thirds.

Mr. Dean: It depended entirely on by how much the then National Assistance

was put up. The question is whether it is the case, as I understand it, that those on supplementary pensions are going to get a 5s. increase, whereas those who are necessarily better off are going to get a 10s. increase. If that is the position, surely this will create, to say the least, misgivings and resentment amongst those concerned.
I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say, "We have increased the supplement by 5s., have brought in all sorts of special arrangements and have put up the disregards." But before using that type of argument, I hope that he will remember his own speech of 15th December, 1964. in which he said:
In recent years, both sides of the House have considered it very desirable that the increases should operate at the same time in order to avoid the confusion and misunderstandings which occur if … National Assistance allowances which have been increased have to be reduced again after a short time for those receiving the National Insurance benefits. Those people would naturally feel disappointed and frustrated when they found that they received no advantage, or less than the full advantage, from the National Insurance increases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1964 Vol. 704, c. 323.]
If I understand the Bill correctly, that is precisely what is going to happen on this occasion, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain the speech he made on that occasion. This is one example of the selectivity, and that the worst form, against those who are most in need.
Then there are the omissions—the omission of any word about child poverty, of anything for the non-pensioners, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), of anything for the widow who gets no pension, of anything with regard to the disabled. There is the extraordinary Clause 5, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, which gives the right hon. Lady powers to increase family allowances and to reduce National Insurance and Industrial Injuries allowances. Surely it is monstrous to ask the House to accept, without any chance of a debate, on a negative Resolution what may well be a major change in social policy at what may be a substantial cost. Surely the least the right hon. Lady can do in Committee on Friday is to tell us precisely her intentions under Clause 5.
Then there is the question of sickness benefit. Here we have the second most expensive benefit in the whole National Insurance Scheme, now costing over £300 million a year. Has the right hon. Lady considered the possibility of asking the employers to take on the first few weeks of sickness and relieve the National Insurance scheme of this? Many employers do it now. I am sure that there is a considerable overlapping and duplication in this between the sickness benefit scheme and what the employers do. Has the right hon. Lady considered the possibility of saving expenditure in this respect?
These are just a few possible ways in which selectivity within the National Insurance arrangements could be introduced. In so far as the Bill deals with the declining standard of living of pensioners themselves, we welcome it but we are disappointed that it leaves many urgent questions untouched.

9.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): Although we have had a very limited debate on Second Reading I think that everyone will agree that those Members who have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, have made interesting and thought-provoking speeches on many aspects of our social security provisions. I can understand the disappointment that many hon. Members feel about the shortness of this debate, but I understand that this was agreed upon through the usual channels, so the fault must not be put just on one side.
In a debate so limited as this it is not possible for me, I think everyone will accept, to answer all the questions that have been posed, but I am sure that we shall hear more about them during the Committee stage of the Bill.
Before passing to the Bill, I must say, with respect to the hon. Lady, the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), that we are becoming accustomed to the kind of politically biased speech she always seems to make on social security matters. She always seems to act as if she herself is the guardian of the Tory Party's conscience on social security provisions. The

more that conscience reminds her of what the Tory Party should have done for the neediest section of the community when they had the opportunity to do so, the more politically dismal and defensive her speeches become. There is hope for her yet. After 13 years of Tory rule, I can understand her dilemma when she has to reply on social security matters. She is a kindly person at heart, so we look forward to much better speeches from her in the years that lie ahead.
As my right hon. Friend has said, the main feature of the Bill that we have put to the House is the increase in National Insurance benefits—sickness and unemployment benefits, retirement and widows' pensions. They are to go up by 10s. for a single person and 16s. for a married couple.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that in the three years that will have elapsed since we took office in October, 1964, single rate pensions will have increased by £1 2s. 6d. and married rate pensions will have gone up by £1 17s.—an increase of a third in money terms over the previous rate. Despite what he has said, the Government have maintained benefits at a higher level than ever was achieved when hon. Members opposite were in power. The country will recognise that the economic and financial context in which we have had to take our decisions, has presented us with great difficulty when we have had to decide upon our priorities.
I think that every fair-minded person in the land will accept that our actions are clear evidence of the Government's determination to look after those who rely on the benefits of the scheme—the old, the sick and the unemployed.
We are also very much concerned to look after the industrially disabled. For instance, as a consequence of the Bill, about 350,000 people will benefit from the increases which we propose in industrial injury benefits. Disablement benefit is being increased by 17s. to £7 12s., and injury benefit by 10s. to £7 5s. It is true that there is to be a larger increase in disablement benefit than in injury benefit, but in many injury benefit cases there will be an earnings-related supplement.
Other industrial injury benefits—disablement gratuities and the supplementary


allowances payable with disablement benefit—special hardship allowance, unemployability supplement, constant attendance allowance and increases for dependants, are also increased.
However, it would be a mistake to think of this operation as being concerned solely with increases in National Insurance and Industrial Injuries benefits and contributions. There will also be increases in war pensions and in supplementary benefits which are not part of the Bill, but which will come into effect at the same time. They form a very necessary corollary to the increases in National Insurance and industrial injuries benefits.
A lot has been said about selectivity, but one should not overlook the fact that a very large number of people really need the benefit of the increases which we are making. They are considerable increases, and they will be of great help to many thousands of people.
It has been said both in the House this evening and elsewhere in the country that a choice should be made between universal contingency benefits as of right, and selectivity based on some test of need. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said repeatedly in reply to Questions and has emphasised again this evening that she does not see the issue in that black and white way. I agree entirely with her. My right hon. Friend and I believe that there is a place in social security provision both for benefits which are payable because an insurable contingency has arisen and without any further test of need, and for benefits which are directed towards meeting special need on an individual basis.
At this point I want again to ask whether those who favour selectivity as a general answer are ready to say that they propose to let our old folk, the unemployed, the sick, widows, war pensioners and the industrially injured draw benefits which, year after year, fall further behind not only the rising standards of the population at large, but the cost of living.
Hon. Members opposite have expressed the view that there ought to be a more efficient use of our national resources for social security provision. The hon. Lady and others have said as much this evening. That is fair enough, but as my hon.

Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) has said, the Opposition have not said how they would measure this greater efficiency, nor what its practical effect would be. They never advise us of the consequences of their approach to the problem.

Mr. Dean: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we are discussing his Bill and not the Tory Bill which we should like to see.

Mr. Pentland: That is how we get into the dilemma. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite continue to advance arguments that we should make a more efficient use of our national resources. It is interesting to note that, at the same time, we are criticised for not giving a larger increase in this Bill. We have also been criticised for not giving contributory benefits to those who have not paid contributions. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it all ways. Where are the resources to come from?
It is quite true that some workers are covered by sick pay schemes while they are off work because of illness, and that some retired people have made adequate provision for themselves in old age or enjoy the benefits of occupational pensions schemes. We have no indication, however, that more than a minority of pensioners are receiving National Insurance benefits as an addition to an already adequate income, but we do know that for very many people above the supplementary benefit level the National Insurance pension is of the very greatest importance. This is not to say that the Supplementary Benefit Scheme is not an essential part of our total social security provision. The benefits as of right which it provides are necessary to the well-being of a great many people.
I now come to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) and the hon. Member for Somerset, North. The main changes proposed in supplementary benefit rates are increases of 5s. a week for a single householder and 8s. a week for a married couple. However, this is the second increase in supplementary benefit rates since National Insurance rates last went up in March, 1965. Taken together with the increases made in the rates when the Supplementary Benefit Scheme was


introduced in November, 1966, our proposals will result in increases of 10s. and 15s. 6d. a week respectively. These are broadly equivalent to the proposed increases in National Insurance rates.
It seems to me wholly proper that people should in the normal course be able to look forward to National Insurance benefits at a reasonable level, which they have contributed towards and draw by right, and be able to supplement these, without diminishing them, by means of savings, occupational pensions, and increments earned by working on after minimum pension age. When people think of selectivity it is important not to confound concern for pockets of poverty and areas of real need with an excessive spread of means-testing which could be a strong disincentive to self-help, and quite possibly a positive disservice both to the population at large and to those in real need.
This does not mean, however, that we have overlooked the need for a close examination of existing schemes for social security. We are looking to the future with the new measures already introduced as a result of our continuing review of the whole field of the social service provisions and the proposals which are still being considered, but it is no less our present concern than it ever was to provide a fair deal for the many thousands of people with rights under our existing schemes.
When we took office we undertook a review of the whole field of social security, and this review is still proceeding despite the cynicism often seen in certain parts of the Chamber. We have made it clear that we would not wait until our review was completed before bringing forward our proposals for improvements in the scheme.
Indeed, as decisions have been taken, we have already brought forward legislation to implement them. In this way we have introduced earnings-related supplements to sickness and unemployment benefits and the widow's allowance. Last August we set up the Ministry of Social Security and introduced in November the Supplementary Benefits Scheme, which has been widely acclaimed by hon. Members opposite as well as by my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said on many occasions that a complete recasting overnight of social security provisions

is probably not desirable and, even if it were, would certainly be impracticable. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend has said over and over again, we are tackling the problems in turn.
Family endowment proposals will be announced very shortly. A scheme of earnings-related pensions to replace the existing highly unsatisfactory scheme will be brought forward as quickly as possible. Work on improved provision for widows and the long-term sick and disabled is also continuing I know the disappointment of many hon. Members that we are not able to bring forward as soon as we would like many of the consequences of this review, but I assure the House that we are very conscious of what remains to be done and, what is more, we are very determined to make progress as speedily as posssible in this direction.
The Bill is a traditional uprating Bill and not a major overhaul of the schemes of social security. I should make it clear that a number of smaller additional measures in the Bill are designed to make improvements in the more restricted fields. For instance, the Bill increases death grant from £25 to £30. This is the first change in the rate since 1958 and only the second since death grant was introduced as an entirely new benefit in 1949. Death grant, of course, does not, and was never intended to, cover the full cost of a funeral. It makes, however, a useful contribution towards a cost which falls on all families.
The income limit below which self-employed and non-employed people may claim exception from paying National Insurance contributions is being raised from £260 to £312.
There are a number of changes in the Bill which are not of any major importance, but I know that they will affect and benefit many thousands of people. The Bill as a whole, however, is of major importance. We are pledged to maintain all social security benefits, and we are doing just that. We have taken action and I assure the House that we will take further action in due course to honour our responsibilities and obligations. People can look forward with complete confidence that the Government


will look after their interests in social security.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—

That the proceedings on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 59.

Division No. 417.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Grieve, Percy
Moyle, Roland


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Newens, Stan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Archer, Peter
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Barnes, Michael
Haseldine, Norman
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Barnett, Joel
Hattersley, Roy
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Heffer, Eric S.
Pardoe, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Binns, John
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Booth, Albert
Hoy, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Boyden, James
Huckfield, L.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richard, Ivor


Brooks, Edwln
Hynd, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Coe, Denis
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Slater, Joseph


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kirk, Peter
Snow, Julian


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Stonehouse, John


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Luard, Evan
Swingler, Stephen


Dickens, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Taverne, Dick


Dobson, Ray
McBride, Neil
Teeling, Sir William


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Thornton, Ernest


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Tuck, Raphael


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Wallace, George


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Finch, Harold
McNamara, J. Kevin
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maddan, Martin
Whitaker, Ben


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene




Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Roy
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell, Robert
Winnick, David


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Yates, Victor


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Moonman, Eric



Gregory, Arnold
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Corfield, F. V.


Bence, Cyril
Chichester-Clark, R.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooper-Key, Sir Nell
Dance, James




Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lawson, George
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dunn, James A.
Mac Arthur, Ian
Sharples, Richard


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Small, William


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper
Tomney, Frank


Hannan, William
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, J. E. B.
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian



Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Sir Eric Bullus and


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pym, Francis
Mr. Harold Gurden.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the National Insurance Act 1965, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) subject to the provision made by section 85 of the said Act of 1965 for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund or by section 61 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 for reimbursement out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, of any increases attributable to that Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Minister of Social Security or any other government department which are so payable under either of those sections or under the said section 61 as applied by the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967;
(b) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Family Allowances Act 1965 which is attributable to any provision of that Act of the present Session authorising the said Minister by order made not later than three months after the passing of that Act of the present Session to increase family allowances in respect of any period ending before 9th April 1968.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that the right hon. Lady the Minister of Social Security is still here. The Front Bench is a little overcrowded with right hon. Gentlemen, with their interest apparently in another Measure. I would like to get clear the construction which the right hon. Lady puts on paragraph (b) of the Money Resolution. She will recall that during the Second Reading debate there was a good deal of criticism of Clause 5 which,

as I understand, paragraph (b) is designed to cover.
What are the Minister's intentions in respect of the scope or width of this paragraph? I appreciate that it is not for the right hon. Lady, but for the Chair, to rule what will be in order, but I think I am entitled to ask whether, in framing the Money Resolution in this way, the right hon. Lady desired to exclude the possibility of Amendments being tabled to impose a firm duty on her to introduce an Order increasing family allowances, and removing the present discretion, or, in addition, an Amendment binding her to introduce an Order increasing family allowances by no less than a specified amount?
I do not know whether the Minister has framed this Money Resolution—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to address the House with a multitude of conversations beyond the Bar.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I was saying, I do not know whether the right hon. Lady has framed this Money Resolution widely so that Amendments of that sort, which plainly are of major importance, will not be ruled out under the Money Resolution, but will be debated, or whether she has drawn it so tight as to hamstring the proceedings in Committee.
This is of more than usual importance in view of the unusual nature of Clause 5, and the haste—I make no complaint of this—which the Minister is showing in getting the Bill through by taking it on Friday on the Floor of the House. It is very important that we should not part with this Money Resolution without hearing what the Minister's intentions are in respect of the point that I have raised.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will be aware from the number of similar Bills which he has brought before the House that whether an Amendment is in order—and this is really what he is worried about—is a matter for the Chair to determine.
Paragraph (b) relates to increases in family allowance expenditure which may be incurred if an Order increasing the rates at which the allowances are payable is made. That also is clear to the right hon. Gentleman. The terms of the Resolution restrict the authorisation of increased family allowances expenditure to the periods specified in the Bill. Any Amendment to extend beyond 8th April, 1968, the period for which a statutory instrument can be made under the Bill would therefore be out of order. Any Amendment to increase family allowances under the Bill would also be out of order.
As I tried to explain in the Second Reading debate, this is an enabling Clause. I hope that further explanations

which have been asked for will be forth-coming in Committee on Friday.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the National Insurance Act 1965, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) subject to the provision made by section 85 of the said Act of 1965 for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund or by section 61 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 for reimbursement out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, of any increases attributable to that Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Minister of Social Security or any other government department which are so payable under either of those sections or under the said section 61 as applied by the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967;
(b) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Family Allowances Act 1965 which is attributable to any provision of that Act of the present Session authorising the said Minister by order made not later than three months after the passing of that Act of the present Session to increase family allowances in respect of any period ending before 9th April 1968.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [23rd June] on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO HOMOSEXUAL ACTS IN PRIVATE.)

Which Amendment was: In page 1, line 9, to leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'twenty-five':—

Question again proposed, That 'twenty-one' stand part of the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: At our last sitting on the Bill we were discussing, with this Amendment, Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'twenty-five';
Amendment No. 18, in Clause 3, page 3, line 3, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen';
Amendment No. 23, in line 9, leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'twenty-five';
Amendment No. 25, in line 15, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'
Amendment No. 29, in line 31, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen' and Amendment No. 30, in line 36, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) was addressing the House.

Mr. Ray Mawby: As you have said, Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of our last sitting on the Bill we were discussing this group of Amendments which, as I then said, can be roughly broken up into two basic parts. The first part deals with the normal age of consent for consenting adults, as provided in the Bill, namely, 21. The Amendment is designed to change that age to 25.
The more important question, with which I had begun to deal last time, is the change covered by Amendment No. 18 and the subsequent Amendments. Clause 3, basically, seeks to reduce the sentence imposed upon anyone who commits buggery with a person above the age of 16 years. The sponsors of the Bill

have said that they were interested in making certain that this practice should be allowed among consenting adults, but they have always pointed out that they wanted to increase penalties for those who interfere with children. Probably all hon. Members would support that idea.
Amendment No. 18 seeks to amend Clause 3, which deals with the man who commits buggery with "another man," as the Bill puts it
of or over the age of sixteen …
I would have thought that the word used should be "person" because to talk of a child of 16 as a man is a misuse of the English language. The Clause provides that a man who commits this heinous offence with another man
of or over the age of sixteen shall, instead of being imprisoned for life as prescribed by paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1956, be
and then there are two subsections, the first of which deals with the case of the man who did not obtain consent from the other party, in which case the sentence shall be reduced to ten years, and the second with the case where the other person gives consent, where the term of imprisonment shall be reduced to five years.
I ask the House seriously to consider this matter because the Bill seeks to reduce the sentence upon a man who commits this offence with a child. These are children, boys still attending grammar school or starting apprenticeships, yet this sentence would be seriously reduced. We should consider whether the sentence should be reduced so much for a man interfering with a child. Second, and far more important, is the question of consent. The Bill provides that, if a party of 16 or over consents to the act, the sentence will be only five years. But how can a child of 16 be construed as having consented to an act which he might not begin to understand?
The sponsors may think that the courts are competent to decide whether he has consented, but we have a duty to society to ensure that they never have to—

Mr. James Dance: My hon. Friend may remember that, when we last discussed this unpleasant subject, I raised the history of two young people who were taken from this country to the south of France—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to repeat the story. We have a long debate ahead of us.

Mr. Dance: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. There was no question of that. Can we be certain that these people were over the age of 16? I am not sure they were. With these young people, is it consent or some idea that they will have a much more comfortable life? This is important. I am trying to enlarge on what my hon. Friend is saying—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions, like speeches, must be related to the Amendments under discussion.

Mr. Mawby: My hon. Friend has a point, because some young people of 16 are just beginning to develop and are out to experiment with anything. The newspapers and our daily life prove how youngsters want to try all these things, including drugs. Young people of that age are not mature and it is thus wrong to provide that the courts should decide whether a young person consented to an act of this nature. If this is to be so, let us at least provide that the age is 18. Even at that age, many young men have not met life, because they are still going to school or university, and we must give them proper protection. By taking the present line, we are doing nothing to protect young people.
I was under a misapprehension last time, because I thought that the Home Secretary would not have the same powers to intervene, for instance, to let a prisoner out on licence, in the case of a person sentenced to life imprisonment for this sort of offence as he would in the case of a murderer serving the same sentence. The Home Secretary shook his head, thereby giving the lie to the view I held. If he has the same powers to allow a man out on licence when he is under a life sentence in the same way as he has for a convicted murderer, there is no need to reduce the sentence from a sentence of life imprisonment. There will still be the right left to the Home Secretary to release a prisoner on licence if he thinks there are extenuating circumstances or that the person is fit to be let out to the community.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On what Amendment is the hon. Member speak-

ing at the moment? We are discussing two ages, are we not?

Mr. Mawby: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I have strayed out of order. I was trying to show that the change that was made reducing a life sentence to a shorter sentence made no need for this provision. I went on for a little too long in my illustration and moved a little way from the Amendment. I hasten to apologise and to move from that point.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I am not clear on what my hon. Friend is saying about this sentence. He referred to it as a sentence for five years—

Mr. Speaker: Order. When an hon. Member is trying to get back into order an intervention should not encourage him to go out of order again.

Mr. Mawby: I do not intend to err again if I can help it.
The important point about these Amendments—I am concerned with the later ones more than with the first one—is the whole question of the boy of 16 years of age compared with the boy of 18, to which age my Amendment seeks to change the age concerned. I believe that the age of consent has always been referred to as 21. Some nowadays think that it should be reduced a little for various activities of adult life. It may be that certain changes might be needed to make it in certain cases a little lower than 21. In this matter it is our bounden duty, whatever we may feel, to protect the youth of the country. If there is to be a change, 18 years of age is the absolute minimum. Because I believe that, I support this group of Amendments.

Mr. Ian Percival: Mr. Ian Percival (Southport) rose—

Sir Spencer Summers: On a point of order. For the benefit of those who were not present when the debate on this subject was started, may we know whether there will be two Divisions, one concerning the change from age 21 to 25 and a second one on the quite different proposition to change it from 16 to 18?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite a reasonable point. I have had no request for two Divisions. I do not think that at this stage I can promise two Divisions.

Sir S. Summers: Do I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that the question has not yet been decided?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member heard me.

Sir S. Summers: No, I did not, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: May I repeat myself? No request has been put to me by those who have put down the number of Amendments to the Bill that they require two Divisions. I have now decided that there will not be two Divisions.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Percival: Mr. Speaker, you used the charming phrase that you could not promise two Divisions. There are many Amendments being discussed together and we are not called upon to decide only two—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood the point put to me by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). I have ruled on it. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) will speak to the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: All I was trying to do, Mr. Speaker, was to think on my feet and to see whether there was some way of explaining that we are dealing with separate issues.
As you have said, we have a long night ahead of us. I want to make one or two general observations about the Amendments which I should perhaps get out of the way first. We have to assume for the purposes of the Amendment that there is to be a Bill of this kind, and I shall bear that in mind and avoid Third Reading points. But there is another assumption which I can fairly make, and it is that all hon. Members are agreed that even if there is to be a Bill of this kind, it is of the first importance that it contains certain minimum safeguards.
I had hoped when I came here, and still hope, that hon. Members, including members of the Government, would not take these matters lightly, would not assume that they have a monopoly of the right ideas, and would not assume that the Bill is perfect, but would assume that

those who have come here to speak—and to speak through the night if necessary—believe that there are proposals which require consideration. We hope that those who say that they regard these matters as important will behave as if they so believe.
My last general observation is that I hope that we shall have no more of the nonsense that we have had in the House and the Press that if someone dares to have a different point of view—on detail, for I am keeping to the Amendment—and dares to deploy an argument about it, that is filibustering. I am sorry to see those, self-styled, of enlightened opinion being so intolerant of the opinions of others.
That was, in fact, my last but one general observation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we start the evening, hon. Members should know that hon. Members who speak to an Amendment will be expected to address their remarks to that Amendment. The Chair will see that they do. The hon. and learned Member has made some useful general observations. He must now come to the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I made those general observations at that point so that I could make them just once. I hope that the House appreciates that they were made in sincerity.
The matters with which we have to deal on the Amendment are very technical, complicated and important. It is disgraceful that the House is discussing them at this time of night when we are all exhausted. But we must do the best we can. In a matter such as this there is very much a danger of more haste, less speed. I do not know what hon. Members opposite find funny about that. It is typical of the assumption—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us begin as we intend to go through the night. The hon. and learned Member must start speaking to the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: That was the very next word in my notes. This group of Amendments deals with age. There are two separate groups. The House must first be clear about each of these groups. I make no apology for assuming that there are, perhaps, hon. Gentlemen who


have not got them entirely clear, because it takes some experience in the law to work them out. I have spent, I suppose, 20 years understanding things like this. Certainly, I could not work the difference out—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and learned Member cannot address himself to the Amendments I must ask him to resume his seat.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Percival: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry, because I do assure you that I am doing my best to come to the Amendments. Perhaps I find them more difficult than some Members, but I assure you that it is not for want of trying.
What one has got to get clear in one's mind in discussing whether the ages should be altered—this is what these Amendments do—is the significance of the difference of these two ages in the Bill. This is what I was coming to next, Mr. Speaker, to make quite sure that the House is clear in its mind what the significance of these two ages is. It is this. Subject to the exceptions in the Bill it will, when the Bill becomes law, be no offence to do the things referred to in the Bill if both persons are over the age of 21. This is the first point one has got to get into one's mind. But it is only the first point in which the age of 21 is significant.
Secondly, as I understand the Bill—if I be wrong I shall be happy to have any hon. Gentleman correct me—these things will be an offence if one is under 21, even if the other is over 21, and then both, as I understand it, would be guilty of an offence. This is my interpretation of the significance of the age of 21 as it stands in the Bill at the moment.
The significance of the age of 16 is rather different. The significance of that age is that the seriousness of the offence is mirrored in the penalty provided, which is greater where the person is under the age of 16. I hope that this is an indication of my good will in the matter, that a good deal of what I want to say on that I shall say on my own Amendment, No. 17, in which there is a bit of overlapping, and so I shall not say it now.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. and learned Member now address himself to the

Amendments? They are to substitute for the two ages in the Bill, in the first case, 25, and in the second 18.

Mr. Percival: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Now the question is, should 21 be the age which has the two consequences I have just postulated, or should it be 25, and should 16 be the age which has the second consequence that I postulated or should it be some higher age, in this instance 18? What one has to bear in mind here is that everybody, including the most ardent promoters of this legislation, is agreed that we have got to have age limits of this kind. The purpose of these age limits is the protection of the young. So what we have to consider, when considering whether these ages are right, is whether they do, in fact, secure the protection sought, whether to have 21 and 16 secures adequate protection or whether one needs some other ages to get the right protection. It is to that that I address my mind.
The first question one must ask oneself in that context—and I shall direct my mind first to 21 and then to 16, and I shall take 16 very briefly because I believe that my contribution on 16 comes later, in my own Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very serious debate ahead of us, on very serious issues. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to address himself more precisely to the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker but I had thought that I was doing that. I am trying to be specific. I have spent a lot of time trying to be specific, and I address myself now to age 21.
The question one has to ask oneself first of all, is, is whether there is any intrinsic reason why that age should be chosen because, if there is, I, who support an alteration of that age, ought to deal with that point. I have asked myself whether there is, and I want to suggest that there is not. In many instances it has been said that the object of the promoters in many of their provisions is to put homosexual conduct on a par, so far as that is possible, with heterosexual conduct, but here one can gain no assistance. The age of 21 has never had any significance in heterosexual conduct, so one cannot say that there is any parallel that one can pray in aid.
"Age of consent" is a term that has been used, and it may be that there are some who take the view that 21 is a sensible age—because consent is an important element in this Bill—and in some respects it has long been regarded as the age of consent. I want to suggest to the House that this would be a fallacious approach. It has been said that 21 has been the age of consent for marriage for a long time, but I think that every hon. Member will agree that that is really talking about something quite different. It has been the age of responsibility for contracts for some time, but I want to suggest that no assistance is to be derived from drawing a parallel there, because the subject matter is so different. It has been regarded for a long time as the age at which people are allowed to vote—indeed there are many who say that if a man is old enough to fight at 18 he should have the vote at 18, and it may be said that he is old enough to do this at 18 if we are to permit people to do it at all.
I suggest that one cannot justify any of those, and I have not been able to think of any other argument that might be advanced in justification. The reason for choosing an age much higher than has ever had any significance in sexual offences before must be the enormous importance of providing protection up to a substantial age. With that I agree. But I suggest that the promoters, though I agree with their motives for going as high as 21, have not gone high enough.
What are we doing here? It is no good looking for a logical basis or for something else in our law which we can use as a comparison. What we have to do is to try to get what is practicable and will secure the desired objective. I suggest at least three reasons why the age of 21 is a bad choice.
10.45 p.m.
It comes right in the middle of a university career. [Laughter.] I have been busy for these last three weeks, so perhaps my thought processes are slow, but I thought we could discuss this on the basis of protecting young people and the desirability of protecting them up to the age of 25. If that is so, it surely applies to university as to anywhere else.
The proposal in the Bill would mean that if, at university, two people did this,

one under 21 and the other over, one would not be committing an offence and the other would, subject to the exceptions made. If they were to do this together, both would be committing an offence. That is the sort of absurdity to which the Bill, however well intentioned, leads. It will bring the law into disrepute.
The second reason is that, at the age of 21, most people are just starting on their careers. Few people are established at that age. Earlier, we discussed what is and what is not genuine consent. I think we were all worried that weak people would be under pressure. Many people are anxious to get established at that age and are vulnerable to pressures. For that reason, too, 21 is a bad age.
Thirdly, life is a hard school and we learn by mistakes. I have made some mistakes tonight and I have learnt by them. We learn by our mistakes. It is by having to take decisions and facing situations that our judgment gets better.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman's philosophy of life has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: With great respect, it has this to do with it—that I suggest that a man is a great deal more experienced in life and judgment at 25 than at 21. Other hon. Members may take a different view. But I believe that it is a fact that a man of 25—although there are exceptions—has more experience and better judgment.

Mr. Dance: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that the age of 21 is an age when people are seeking to take jobs and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member seems to have the habit of seeking to make a speech under the guise of an intervention.

Mr. Percival: It was that kind of consideration mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) that I had in mind in my second reason. But I do not want to dilate on any of these reasons. I have given my feelings. I suggest that these are wholly practical reasons. I am not suggesting that 25 is a perfect age. No doubt one can give other reasons for other ages, but if we mean what we say about protecting the young, then 25 is not perfect. However,


it is a much more sensible choice than 21 which will merely introduce further anomalies and the sort of ridiculous situation which leads us in these matters to change the law.
On the proposed change from 16 to 18 years I merely want to say that between those ages a person changes a lot; he becomes much more mature. For reasons so obvious that they do not need a lot of illustration, 16 is too young for the purpose for which it has been chosen. I respectfully ask the House to say that a minimum of 18 should be the figure to he included there.
I apologise for having taken so long, Mr. Speaker, but the only purpose in my being here is to put forward views which I believe to be material. I appreciated your guidance on matters when they were not relevant. I regret that I did stray out of order, but, though I did, let no Member of the House for that reason attribute to me any less sincerity than he may have in the views which he holds. I believe that these Amendments are important and that the ages proposed should be at least the minima and I support them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair never questions the sincerity of any hon. Member, hut the Chair is determined that hon. Members shall keep in order when they are debating.

Mr. Gurden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Forgive me for not quite understanding your Ruling, but I am not the only one who misunderstood about the Divisions. On Clause 3, Amendment No. 18 seems to be a different point. Even if we decide on 21 in this Amendment, Amendment No. 18 throws up a different point and I would have hoped that we could divide on that.

Mr. Speaker: I understood the point when it was first put by one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, I understood it when it was put again by one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, and the answer is still the same. There will be one Division on this group of Amendments.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. What Amendment are we to divide on?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady looks at her Notice Paper she will see that the Question before us is that "twenty-one" stand part of the Bill.

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. We are discussing a whole lot of Amendments, but I do not understand why this particular one has been selected, though I am sure it will be the right one.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that, with the hon. Lady's long experience of the House of Commons, she has never before been in her place when on one Amendment we were taking a number of others.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I believe that even among those who strongly support the general principles of the Bill there will be a majority who will support the Amendment now being considered. The sponsors of the Bill, and, indeed, many of those who think like them, want greater humanity in the treatment of those who are addicted to homosexual practices. I am sure that those people would be the first to acknowledge that the least desirable consequence of that would be the extension of homosexual practices to those who do not participate in them already. Any wider spreading of these practices would be extremely undesirable. Young persons of 21 who would be held responsible for the normal consequences of a legal contract nevertheless are much more suspectible to new habits or practices than those who are rather older.
I plead with those who are in favour of the principles of the Bill to take the view that it would be beneficial if we raised the age limit by making this moderate increase. Raising the limit from 21 to 25 would ensure at least that anyone under that age who indulged in a homosexual practice for the first time perhaps would render himself liable to a severe penalty, and I feel that we should be creating a valuable safeguard.
When one considers the other group of Amendments, this argument is of even greater weight. It is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that it would be very undesirable to do anything which might make homosexual practices more prevalent among young persons of 16 and just over, whether with consent or without it. To that extent, the


Amendment which proposes to raise the limit to 18 years is a very modest safeguard which the House should not hesitate to accept. It would be most regretable if, by failing to make this slight alteration, we rendered possible even a small increase in the number of persons forced, in the case of an offence without consent, or induced, in some marginal cases with consent, to indulge in such practices.
I plead with the sponsors of the Bill to signify that they are prepared to accept the Amendment which relates to the age of 18 years. I hope to hear them say so at a fairly early stage in the debate, and I certainly hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Leo Abse: If I am brief in speaking to this Amendment, I am sure that it will be appreciated that it is out of no discourtesy to the House but because we are dealing with a matter which has been well canvassed in another place and in our own Committee proceedings.
I agree with all those hon. Members who have spoken that it is inevitable and obvious that there must be an element of arbitrariness in any decision on this point. However, I believe that the prolonged consideration given to it by the Wolfenden Committee has resulted in a wise judgment. It has taken the present legal age of contractual responsibility as the best criterion for the definition of adulthood in this respect.
I do not believe that we are talking entirely in theoretical terms. Having been asked to come to a decision on a particular age, the House is entitled to take into account the experiences of other Western European countries to see whether the alarm which is genuinely felt by many hon. Members is well founded. During the last few days, I have had the opportunity to be in Sweden and Denmark, and it may be of interest to the House, at a time when it is considering the age of consent, to learn what has been the experience in both those countries.
In Sweden, where for many years now the age of 21 has been the age of consent, in practice, I am informed by the police there, they do not take proceedings against anyone between the ages of 18 and 21, whom they regard as being an adult in this context, unless there is a

special relationship, such as that of master and pupil, which would prompt them in those circumstances perhaps to take action.
11 p.m.
It may also be of interest to the House that in Denmark where for many years they had an age group of 21 they have reduced this in the light of their experience to 18. Lest anyone believe that this must be catastrophic, we should remember that when we speak of Denmark we are speaking of one of the few countries of Europe which has the good fortune to be reducing its criminality—not only stabilising it, but in diminishing it. So I think there is an experience which points, apart from the option mentioned in the Wolfenden Committee Report, to the fact, that 21 is a reasonable age in the circumstances.
As to the suggestions concerning 16 and 18 which have been raised, the House itself must judge as to whether one really needs to feel a great deal of indignation because in the particular Clause in the Bill the sentence as far as buggery is concerned in the relevant age groups is reduced from life to 10 years. And it must take into account, too, that in following this Wolfenden recommendation in the same Clause, in the case of men committing gross indecency against young persons, the two-year maximum is increased to five years.
There is no question of anything more serious than the life imprisonment sentence being reduced to 10 years in the case of those of 16 years, while still retaining life imprisonment in the case of boys. So, although I appreciate the fears that have been expressed by hon. Members, and do not doubt that they feel those fears, I do not believe that they are well founded, and I would recommend to the House that this group of Amendments should be rejected.

Mr. William Deedes: I want to refer briefly only to the first of the Amendments. There is a point here which bothers me, and, I think, bothers a number of other hon. Gentlemen, and that is the real difficulty, which ought not to be underrated, which the Amendment as it stands will create for the authorities at the universities and corresponding institutions.
On the face of it, the Bill adds no difficulties at all, because I apprehend that this offence as it has been under the law has never at universities or like institutions been treated as a criminal offence but invariably as a matter of university discipline. I could be wrong about that, but I think that that has been the case.
The Bill is bound to have repercussions because it will affect what has hitherto been regarded as a proper matter for discipline. I foresee two difficulties here. First, there is the age of legality, though I differ from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) because I should have thought that the bulk of undergraduates at universities today are under 21; none the less, the age of 21 will certainly cross the university community, if I may put it that way. As the Bill stands, homosexual acts between two individuals over 21 are licit whereas where one is over 21 and one is under 21 they become illicit. I readily accept that the first Amendment will not really meet the point. Even if one draws a line at 25 one still comes across the cross section of the residential community.
But there remains the effect of the Bill on those who will have to uphold discipline after it has become an Act. Male and female students can be disciplined for all misconduct between them because it involves an elementary breach of a rule about the hours at which they can visit each others colleges. No such consideration will apply as between one male and another, and to this extent the issue of morality and the right to discipline becomes much more and not less difficult.
In effect, the dividing line will become not sex, but age, which may turn on only a month or two. Two consenting males aged over 21 in a college will be within the law and will argue that their behaviour is a matter for private consideration only. But what happens when there are two consenting males, one of whom is a few months under 21? A criminal offence has been committed which would almost certainly be regarded as a matter for discipline within the university.
No doubt everything will be handled with discretion by the authorities. The last thing I want to do is to suggest that

they have not got plenty of experience and cannot deal with such matters. But this illustrates some of the real difficulties to which the Bill will give rise, and which perhaps some of the sponsors—I do not say this of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)—are apt to treat too lightly.
In dealing with such an Amendment, we do not finish our duties by saying that the bulk of the population desires a change in the law and that there is the end of the matter. We have a duty to weigh the consequences of what will be done for some people. I have no doubt that in this instance we shall leave a very difficult matter to be resolved by authorities at universities and elsewhere.
My conclusion is that changing the age limit will make no contribution, and, therefore, in a sense I reluctantly reject the Amendment. Perhaps the matter should have further consideration at a later stage, but I suppose that it is too late now.

Sir S. Summers: I was surprised at the conclusion my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) drew from his own arguments. The whole burden of his speech was that to have a dividing line at 21, which would cut right across the university community, made 21 a bad age to choose. Yet, having given all the reasons why the problem differed from problems of heterosexual activities, he apparently did not follow his argument to its logical conclusion and decide to support the Amendment.
I support it. The more I hear of the debate—and this is the first time I have listened to and taken part in the debate on the Bill—the more absurd it seems to me to argue that this change in the law makes sense because it gets nearer the law on heterosexual activities. In this context, an age limit of 16, 18, 21 or 25 is completely different from that in the heterosexual law.
I support the proposition to increase the age to 25 for the very simple reason that I fear that as the years go by whatever age is chosen will be the victim of arguments to reduce it by first one year and then another. Every decade it is alleged that young people are more mature. We hear talk of people voting at 18. Therefore, the higher the figure at which we start, the safer will be the


situation 10 or 20 years' hence. This is a very elementary way of looking at the problem, but I should feel much happier that in 10 or 20 years a more reasonable age would follow if we started at 25 than if we started at 21.
I am sorry that Mr. Speaker ruled that we could not express ourselves in a separate Division on the proposition of 18 versus 16. It is not for me to challenge his Ruling, but it is proper for me to regret that one of the reasons which he advanced for his decision was that those who tabled the Amendments did not ask for a separate Division and that the application had been made only by me earlier.
I listened with attention to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) telling us of the experience which he had discovered on the Continent. He was at pains to say that in Sweden, during the period between 18 and 21, the blind eye was turned. I thought that the sponsors of the Bill disliked the discretion existing to the police and advanced as one of the reasons for the Bill the elimination of the element of discretion. It seemed strange to me, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should advance as an argument for his case that discretion was applied effectively in Sweden.
The same reasons apply to lifting the age from 16 to 18 as apply to raising it from 21 to 25. With the Amendments there would be a gap of seven years. The Bill proposes a gap of five years. The gap of seven years is to be preferred. I do not propose to advance any further arguments other than to say how much I hope that the House will decide to raise the age from 16 to 18 and from 21 to 25.

Mr. J. T. Price: Like the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), I listened with surprise to the observations of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I, too, think that he ran away from the logic of his argument. He referred to the practice in universities as it might apply under the proposed legislation. He seemed to say that we are dealing with a closed community, that the university authorities would normally deal with questions of indiscipline and the proctors would report them to the authorities. That may be all right when dealing with the ordinary re-

lationship which might exist between a girl student and a man student, a heterosexual relationship in which there is a mutual attraction, with the usual result.
But everyone, including even the Bill's sponsors and those who think that reform of the law is necessary, has come round to the admission that this form of depravity is a source of corruption of young people; and where could corruption have the greatest opportunity of manifesting itself other than within the closed confines of a university?

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Depravity.

Mr. Price: I believe in calling things by their proper name and I shall try to remain strictly relevant to the issues contained in the Amendments.
If we are dealing with a population of "freshers", as they are called when they go to university at 17 or 18, and stay for four or five years until they are well past the age of consent of 21, we are dealing with a mixed group of people.

Mr. Gurden: Mr. Gurden rose—

Mr. Price: I know that the hon. Gentleman wishes to assist, but I am capable of pursuing this argument logically and without getting super-heated about it.
We are dealing with a group of people, which may run to several thousands, who consider that it is being "with it" to respond to every modern idiom which is fashionable—to take drugs and to do all sorts of stupid things which are one of the privileges of youth; in other words, to sow wild oats. The Amendment indicates that the age in the Bill is much too young, even if one accepted the necessity for the Bill, which I do not. That is too wide a question for me to debate tonight, when we are dealing with a group of people, in a university.
11.15 p.m.
Nothing more destructive for the sponsors of the Bill could have been said than was said by the right hon. Member for Ashford. The police would rarely, if ever, take action if an information that something were happening between a boy of 21 or 22, within the sphere of legality, and a junior boy, new to the university. One of the things about homosexuals is that they are always looking for new recruits.
One will find people "hooked", not only with drugs, including heroin, but with this, because it might appear to them to be the done thing, to be done from time to time. The arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Ashford tended more to show that the age should be raised higher, to 25 perhaps, and that one would then approach a gap between the newcomers and the practised homosexuals—and drug addicts—who may be able to live with homosexual activities and lead others into the fold.
Then we come to the dichotomy between 21 as the age of consent and the junior partner in the enterprise, if it is right to call it an enterprise. The junior partner would be under 21, and perhaps as young as 16 or 17½. Yet, because of differentiation in penalty, neither the House nor the Wolfenden Committee are prepared to admit that the person suffering the greatest personal injury, and at the greatest psychological risk, is the person "hooked" at 15 who does not know what it is all about. The arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Ashford about this are very casual and complacent. One can be too sophisticated. All reality is disappearing because people are becoming too sophisticated and are prepared to take a casual attitude. I do not care if anybody calls me "old hat" or "old-fashioned". If the House passes this in its present form without realising that we are dealing with something which may corrupt and deprave the rising generation, we may be condemned.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am delighted that the Leader of the House has woken up after that delightful speech. I do not dissent from the observations of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J.T. Price) when he says we want a rather less sophisticated approach.
I had lunch with the Secretary of the Congress Party of India who expressed horror that the Government could have extra time for this Bill in the present circumstances. The attitude of many overseas countries to the suggestion that those of 21—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I was coming straight to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The suggestion that those of 21 years of age should be given complete freedom to engage in acts of buggery without any kind of control or criminal sanction whatsoever is one which is completely contrary to nature. It has been far too frequently overlooked, particularly by the Press, that what we are concerned with first and foremost in this debate and on the Amendment is the basic fact that we are seeking to offer a complete right to do as one pleases on matters that are contrary to the normal nature of mankind. This is violently objected to by many of the countries in the Commonwealth as contravening the ordinary laws of nature.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing, not the principles of the Bill, but the Amendments which are before the House, which are related to the question of age. Will the hon. Member address himself to that subject?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the age is governed by the words "a homosexual act"? Therefore—and this has been overlooked in this part of the debate—the main question of concern is the nature of the homosexual act.
When considering what the age shall be, whether it shall be 21 or 25, we have to consider whether the permissive act is a homosexual act of sodomy or a homosexual act of permitted masturbation. In the days when this was the subject of discussion in 1885 on the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the whole course of the debate never turned upon argument that buggery would ever be allowed in Britain. This was nonsense. It was not until the modern age of the last few years, and the ludicrous and puerile practices of the present society that wants to carry the Bill through, that it was ever suggested that the crime of buggery would be permitted in Britain.
The point I want to make—it has been overlooked in the debate and I shall come back to it as we go through in the course of our argument—is this. The Bill provides in page 1, line 7—it is a shame on the country that it should—that any homosexual act shall be lawful at 21 years of age.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member will link his remarks to the Amendments, he will be in order.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they are completely linked. The point—you have not been in the Chamber—I am making is that if we are dealing with a homosexual act which is merely gross indecency, or an act of masturbation, we may well apply one age as our criterion, but that if we are permitting an act of complete sodomy, removing the criminal sanction, that criterion as to age does not apply.

Mr. Stanley Orme: A lawyer's argument.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is not a lawyer's argument, as I will soon show.
If 21 years of age was to be governed merely by the removal of a position which would permit consenting homosexual acts in private, but not amounting to buggery, I would be prepared to accept 21 years of age as being sufficient for the purposes of avoiding the offence of debauching youth. If, however, one is to permit the removal of the age-old common law crime of buggery, the penetration of the anus, we are encouraging a practice—

Mr. Michael English: Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West) rose—

Mr. Rees-Davies: I will give way presently—which those of us who are conversant with the law know is very similar in its encouragement to those who engage in narcotics, drinks, alcohol, or other practices. There is all the difference in the world between acts of gross indecency which take place between males, which do not lead to sodomy, and those which do. Those who know anything about school life know that young men who engage in masturbation usually grow out of it and turn to women and do not get debauched, whereas those who engage in sodomy remain with it for the rest of their lives. That is the difference.
Those who really understand this subject, and have had to understand it and see it through the courts, and see these addicts suffer as severely as drug addicts and alcoholics suffer, know that there is no cure for the bugger who has been buggered from 16 onwards, and it is about time that the House and this country faced the real fact which arises on this

Amendment. There has been a lot of loose thinking on this subject. There are many people who have not given it the real consideration that it merits. They have not faced the difference between masturbation, or acts of indecency, and the full offence of a common law crime.
With regard to the age limit of 21, I accept the line of argument deployed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) about the universities. The age of 21 is not suitable for this Amendment, because it is saying that we will now allow not only those at university level, but people of 21 or 20 in the factories, and apprentices, too, to continue what one might call the lesser form of homosexual pleasure. In addition, it will be known that they can engage in what at the moment is an offence for which they can be imprisoned for life.
There is an alternative question which I think should be posed on the Amendment to Clause 3. Under this Clause, apparently, if someone commits an act of this sort with an animal, he may be imprisoned for life, but if he commits it with a boy of 16, and he consents, he will be imprisoned for only five years. What more utterly ludicrous anomaly could there be than that?

Mr. English: I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman's legal knowledge, but throughout his speech he has been using the terms "buggery" and "sodomy" as though they were interchangeable. If I recollect aright, he will find that buggery in law is sodomy and/or bestiality, and it would assist his argument if he were to use the word "sodomy" when he means it, rather than "buggery".

Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is not that difference in Scottish law, but in English law buggery applies only to human beings, whereas sodomy has a wider connotation.
Apparently the purpose of Clause 3 is to reduce penalties. I am not arguing that if we abolish buggery as a criminal offence, to have the offence of buggery we should not reduce the penalties, but if the sponsor of the Bill looks at paragraph (a) of Clause 3 he will see that it applies imprisonment for 10 years except where he other person consents thereto.
It is a very difficult criterion to apply. It is very difficult to establish, or to know, in cases which may arise whether the other party is a consenting party, and this is the criterion upon which we are asked to say whether the right age that we should apply is 16, or whether it should be 18. I think that it is better to play safe and say 18 rather than 16, because if we choose the latter we will be dealing with a large number of youths who do not fully appreciate their responsibilities.
11.30 p.m.
One of the difficulties about which hon. Members know perhaps better than anybody is that there is a great number of boys who, unfortunately, are not in these days mature. We know almost better than anyone that in our own constituencies there are boys who, although 16 years of age, have a mental age of 10 or perhaps 12. They represent nowadays perhaps 5 to 10 per cent. of the young men coming through the schools; the mentally retarded. We also know that it is among the mentally retarded that moral turpitude finds its just place and that, in

this group, there is more homosexuality, more lack of moral responsibility, more lack of moral fibre, more petty larceny, and so on. Surely, therefore, when we are considering a new law, we must think whether these people should receive greater consideration?

I do not hold this out as a major point because my main point is that, whatever we should have done about the first part of this first Clause we should widen it to the degree of applying an age limit of 21 or 25. That is what should be done in a Bill which seeks to remove the common law crime of buggery and which is so fundamental a change that we should oppose it. We should go for an older age in both cases.

Dr. David Kerr: Dr. David Kerr (Wandsworth, Central) rose in his place and claimed to move,
That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 35.

Division No. 418.]
AYES
[11.37 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin


Albu, Austen
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford&amp;Stone)
Maddan, Martin


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David


Allen, Scholefield
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, J. J.


Archer, Peter
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mikardo, Ian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gregory, Arnold
Montgomery, Fergus


Barnes, Michael
Grieve, Percy
Moonman, Eric


Barnett, Joel
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Newens, Stan


Benn, Rt. Hn, Anthony Wedgwood
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Haseldine, Norman
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brooks, Edwin
Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pardoo, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hooley, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Chapman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Crawley, Aidan
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Huckfield, L.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hunt, John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Delargy, Hugh
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Delf, Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Royle, Anthony


Dewar, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ellis, John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Smith, John


English, Michael
Kirk, Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fernyhough, E.
Lubbock, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Taverne, Dick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Teeling, Sir William


Foley, Maurice
Macdonald, A. H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George




Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
White, Mrs. Eirene
Worsley, Marcus


Tilney, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Yates, Victor


Walters, Dennis
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Whitaker, Ben
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Ian Gilmour.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Crowder, F. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer


Currie, G. B. H.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dance, James
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mawby, Ray
Tomney, Frank


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sir Gerald Nabarro and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Harold Gurden.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Question put accordingly, That "twenty-one" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 40.

Division No. 419.]
AYES
[11.40 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Grieve, Percy
Palmer, Arthur


Albu, Austen
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pardoe, John


Allen, Scholefield
Hamling, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Archer, Peter
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Haseldine, Norman
Pavitt, Laurence


Barnes, Michael
Hattersley, Roy
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bidwell, Sydney
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Brooks, Edwin
Huckfield, L.
Royle, Anthony


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunt, John
Sheldon, Robert


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Channon, H. P. G.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Chapman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawley, Aldan
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Smith, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Stonehouse, John


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Swingler, Stephen


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Mrs. Anns (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Taverne, Dick


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Teeling, Sir William


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dewar, Donald
Kirk, Peter
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Loughlin, Charles
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dobson, Ray
Luard, Evan
Tilney, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lubbock, Eric
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Walters, Dennis


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Wellbeloved, James


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Whitaker, Ben


Ensor, David
Mackintosh, John P.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fernyhough, E.
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Foley, Maurice
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Ford, Ben
Moonman, Eric
Yates, Victor


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&amp;Stone)
Newens, Stan



Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Ian Gilmour.


Gregory, Arnold
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hannan, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gibson-Watt, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Crowder, F. P.
Goodhew, Victor
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Currie, G. B. H.
Gower, Raymond
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Dance, James
Grant-Ferris, R.
Kershaw, Anthony




King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


MacArthur, Ian
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Tomney, Frank


Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Marten, Neil
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)



Mawby, Ray
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Sir Gerald Nabarro and


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Harold Gurden.


Oswald, Thomas
Summers, Sir Spencer

Mr. Speaker: We come to Amendment No. 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), in page 1, to leave out lines 10 to 14. With it we are taking the following Amendments:

Amendment No. 3, in page 1, leave out line 12.

Amendment No. 4, in page 1, leave out lines 13 and 14.

Amendment No. 5, in line 14, at end insert:
(c) in a public park to which the public have or are permitted to have access.

Amendment No. 6, in line 14, at end insert:
(d) on any land or woodland to which the public can obtain access.

Amendment No. 7, in line 15, at end insert:
(e) in premises which either person uses by virtue of his employment.

Amendment No. 54, in page 1, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert:

(a) by an act of a lewd, obscene and disgusting nature and outraging public decency; or
(b) by conduct injurious to public morals by tending to corrupt the mind and destroy the love of decency, morality and good order.

Amendment No. 51, in line 14, at end insert:
(c) in a British Railways sleeping car.

Amendment No. 53, in line 14, at end insert:
(c) in a prison cell.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. There was a good deal of misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, about your Ruling on the number of Divisions which would be permitted on the last group of Amendments. Having regard to the heterogeneous character of the group of Amendments which we are now called upon to discuss, may we be instructed at the outset as to your Ruling on the number of Divisions which may be called, bearing in mind that there are four distinct and separate principles involved?

Mr. Speaker: If there were any misunderstanding, I should have thought that

it was not due to any lack of clarity in what Mr. Speaker said to the House on that occasion. There will be one Division on this group of Amendments, and it will be on Amendment No. 2.

Sir Charles Taylor: Further to that point of order. When a group of Amendments has been taken in the House, it has been traditional that we should be allowed to vote on each Amendment and each Clause.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is addressing the Chair.

Sir C. Taylor: In the past, when we have debated a group of Amendments dealing with similar subjects we have been allowed a Division on each Clause and each Amendment which was different in character from the others.

Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. Member, that is not an accurate statement of what has happened during the history of Parliament. I have selected the Amendment on which there may be a Division—Amendment No. 2.

Sir S. Summers: Further to that point of order. Amendment No. 51, for example, deals with British Railways sleeping cars.

Sir G. Nabarro: First class—not second class.

Sir S. Summers: Am I right in stating that we shall be in order to discuss that issue, but that we shall be unable to give effect to our views on it by having a Division? If that is so, is there any point in making references to it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has correctly stated the sorry facts of the situation.

Sir C. Taylor: Sir C. Taylor rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of serious business before us tonight. I hope that we shall not waste time on frivolous points of order.

Sir C. Taylor: If you think my point of order frivolous, Mr. Speaker, I apologise. Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 54, 51 and 53 are all entirely different. I suggest that we should be allowed to vote on each of those points.

Mr. Speaker: I must guide the hon. Member. He has been in Parliament a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long.] It is not unusual in the history of Parliament that quite a number of Amendments of a different character are grouped together in one debate. The Chair decides which shall be selected for a Division. I have selected Amendment No. 2 for a Division.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, to leave out lines 10 to 14.
The Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), and I move it, notwithstanding the fact that he is a very strange bedfellow of mine for this purpose. I do so with great humility. In this Amendment the hon. Member wishes to exclude privacy. I wish to include it. The other principle with which we are dealing is the one of outrage to public decency. Each one of these Amendments deals with the principle of privacy or public nuisance, deals with the principle of public morality or outrage to public decency.
Clause 1(2) says:
An act which would otherwise be treated for the purposes of this Act as being done in private shall not be so treated if done—

(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or
(b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise."
The sponsor of the Bill has recognised, by the exclusions which he puts forward, that he does not wish to have homosexual orgies between two persons or more than two persons; he also recognises, apparently, that they should not take place in a public lavatory. That is very good of him, but what I think we really want to consider is something of a wholly different nature. What I believe should be the principle to which the

House should apply its mind is one which has stood the test of time and which has the complete support of the judges of the courts, and fairly recently of the Law Lords in the House of Lords.
Therefore, I have ventured to put down—in their language, let me hasten to add, not mine—Amendment No. 54, which would leave out those two paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert instead:

(a) by an act of a lewd, obscene and disgusting nature and outraging public decency; or
(b) by conduct injurious to public morals by tending to corrupt the mind and destroy the love of decency, morality and good order.
It may be asked: why should one seek to insert into an Act of Parliament now the principles which were adumbrated in another place in a case in which the matter was most fully discussed as being the appropriate alternative? I say that this is the reason: that the whole basis, if we go back to the history of this matter, for laws being introduced to impose criminal sanctions arose out of a desire to curb a public mischief. They arose out of the necessity to establish law and order. They arose because the judges were the custodians of good morals, pro bonis morum. It has been the judges throughout the last five centuries, right up to the present—indeed, up to the present year—who have been the arbitrators for the protection of morals and society in Britain.
It was not until fairly recently that there has ever arisen in modern times a real conflict, but in the Bill this conflict arises. Until not so very long ago—and in a moment I shall refer to the relevant passages of that debate—it has not really come to pass that the judges and Parliament have come into real conflict. In the Bill they undoubtedly do, because the law at the moment is that any person who perpetrates an act which, in the words of Amendment No. 54, is
of a lewd, obscene and disgusting nature and outraging public decency
is guilty of a common law misdemeanour.

12 m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I do not quite understand how, as this Clause deals with acts done in private, the Act can offend against public decency. If it is done in private, it cannot be known to the public. Perhaps my hon. Friend will address himself to that point.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, I certainly shall. If my hon. Friend will be kind enough to read lines 10 and 11 he will see that an act which would otherwise be treated for the purpose of the Bill as being done in private shall not be so treated if it is done when more than two people are present.
Therefore, the Bill as it now stands says that if two people wish to participate in a homosexual act they can be permitted to do so, but that if more than two people want to engage in that act they cannot be so permitted; the law stands, and a criminal offence takes place. Equally, it says that if those two people do the act in a public lavatory they commit an offence; if they do it in private they commit no offence.
The whole essence of the Bill is to permit, if I may say so, largesse to homosexuals to engage in any pleasure they may wish provided that they do it in private, but, says the promoter, "I am prepared to concede that if they do it in a public urinal, or at a party where more than two are present, it shall be a criminal offence."
I say that the whole of that idea is a complete nonsense. I say that if we wish to make some sense of a very had Bill the only way to do it is to amend it by saying, as their Lordships have said in another place and as set out in the Amendment No. 54. We must insert:
by an act of a lewd, obscene and disgusting nature and outraging public decency; or by conduct injurious to public morals by tending to corrupt the mind and destroy the love of decency, morality and good order.
We will then achieve our purpose, which is to retain the right for homosexuals to engage in their pleasures in private, but will have protected the public from the public display of their immorality. I hope that I have explained to my hon. Friend the essence of this point.
This Amendment is only one of a number of most important Amendments giving rise to what I venture to submit is undoubtedly the major debate on these matters, arising because of the complete misunderstanding of the background of our homosexual laws. It dates back to that inept Report of the Wolfenden Committee, which understood very little of the true nature of the corruption of homosexuality. I have not hitherto had the full opportunity to attack the whole

basis of the approach in this matter. This debate, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, which deals with the question of private or public, will keep me in order in a very wide display of the important issues of the day, because the whole question that has arisen here is: shall we permit the Bill to pass on the basis that what people do in private is not to be the subject of a criminal sanction?
I concede at once that it requires a strong writ to declare that what two people like to do in the privacy of their own homes shall be the subject of a criminal sanction. I do not suppose that any of us particularly wants to bring forward for public gaze what a husband and wife may do in the privacy of their own home. But we do it, and we shall continue to do it because an act of sodomy, under the Bill, will still be a matrimonial offence as between husband and wife. Most hon. Members probably do not know that sodomy is a matrimonial offence, upon which a wife can institute and obtain a decree of divorce. A well-known hon. Member, engaged in these debates, did not even know what sodomy was, and that is probably true of many members of the public.
Be that as it may, the House has said that it will take cognisance of cruelty, of sodomy between husband and wife and of many other matrimonial offences. If we are to do this, we must carefully consider whether we should or should not extend this law to acts in private. What is to be the scope?
The Bill says that the test is that the act is between two men. Is that fair? It says that if two homosexuals engage in an act together privately, whatever the act may be it shall not be a criminal offence. But if a third man is an onlooker, even although not a participator, his presence makes it a criminal offence. Pity the voyeur. We are in an extraordinary situation. Homosexuals are perverts. We have in English no phrase to describe the voyeur. We have to use a French word, because it is only in France that this practice apparently rules.
Those of us who recognise these facts know that homosexuals get a large part of their pleasure from observance. Those of us who have the misfortune to engage in the criminal law know that there is good reason why public urinals are consistently used for the sort of offence


known as gross indecency. We have had the unfortunate experience of seeing well-known members of the theatrical profession, clerics and professional men brought before the courts because they could not resist the temptation to expose themselves in public to the public gaze.
Those who recognise the psychology and the background of this business know that to give encouragement, as the Bill seeks to do, to this form of illness, and to permit a continuance of these matters, is undesirable. I apprehend that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was so willing to accept the limited amendment of subsection (2)—limiting the voyeurs, banning the attendance of more than two people at such an act, limiting the position in relation to public urinals and lavatories—because he recognised, as do others, the psychology and the background of the homosexual.
The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) is not here. Being a man who, like me, makes no shame of the fact that he likes the ladies, he raised the point, "I think that it is a bit hard on 'queers' if they cannot have their pleasures without being bullied".
It is their attitude of mind—I hope that hon. Gentlemen will try to get rid of it—that in some way they are being good to 'queers'. This is not good for queers and we are not here in Britain today or through the centuries to do good for what is unnatural. This approach will not do Parliament any good whatsoever. Let us get down to the real facts. If we want to go ahead and introduce the Bill we either have to legalise the whole thing and not include public lavatories and all the rest of it and say, "We will take a chance and deal with this by medical treatment" or we must limit it very severely.
What are the limitations which I would seek to put in? First, I do not think that we should fall into conflict with what has been, since the 16th century, the general picture. In words, which I can only describe as Churchillian, it was put by Lord Simonds, in the House of Lords, in the Shaw case in 1962 Appeal Cases. Dealing with the corruption of public morals, at page 266 he said:
I am concerned only to assert what was vigorously denied by counsel for the appellant, that such an offence is known to the common law, that it was open to the jury

to find on the facts of this case that the appellant was guilty of such an offence. I must say categorically that, if it were not so, Her Majesty's courts would strangely have failed in their duty as servants of the guardians of the common law. Need I say, my Lords, that I am no advocate of the right of the judges to create new criminal offences? I will repeat well-known words: 'Amongst many other points of happiness and freedom which Your Majesty's subjects have enjoyed there is none which they have accounted more dear and precious than this, to be guided and governed by certain rules of law which giveth both to the head and members that which of right belongeth to them and not by any arbitrary or uncertain form of government.' These words are as true today as they were in the seventeenth century and command the allegiance of us all. But I am at a loss to understand how it can be said either that the law does not recognise a conspiracy to corrupt public morals or that, though there may not be an exact precedent for such a conspiracy as this case reveals, it does not fall fairly within the general words by which it is described … The fallacy in the argument that was addressed to us lay in the attempt to exclude from the scope of general words acts well calculated to corrupt public morals just because they had not been committed or had not been brought to the notice of the court before. It is not thus that the common law has developed. We are perhaps more accustomed to hear this matter discussed upon the question whether such and such a transaction is contrary to public policy. … On the one hand, it is said that it is not possible in the twentieth century for the court to create a new head of public policy, on the other it is said that this is but a new example of a well-established head.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the long quotation that the hon. Member is making in line with the Amendment before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to quote from a reference work as long as it is within the Amendment. So far it is in order, but I will listen very carefully.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is upon this that Amendment No. 54 is based. The quotation continues:
In the sphere of criminal law, I entertain no doubt that there remains in the courts of law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the State, and that it is their duty to guard it against attacks which may he the more insidious because they are novel and unprepared for. That is the broad head … within which the present indictment falls. It matters little what label is given to the offending act. To one of your Lordships it may appear an affront to public decency, to another considering that it may succeed in its


obvious intention of provoking libidinous desires it will seem a corruption of public morals. Yet others may deem it aptly described as the creation of a public mischief or the undermining of moral conduct. The same act will not in all ages be regarded in the same way. The law must be related to the changing standards of life, not yielding to every shifting impulse of the popular will but having regard to fundamental assessments of human values and the purposes of society. Today a denial of the fundamental Christian doctrine which in past centuries would have been regarded by the ecclesiastical courts as heresy and by the common law as blasphemy, will no longer be an offence … When Lord Mansfield, speaking long after the Star Chamber had been abolished, said that the Court of King's Bench was the custos morum of the people and had the superintendency of offences contra bonos mores, he was asserting as I now assert, that there is in that Court a residual power, where no statute has yet intervened to supersede the common law, to superintend those offences which are prejudicial to the public welfare. Such occasions will be rare, for Parliament has not been slow to legislate … But gaps remain … Let it be supposed"—
and here is the real barb—
that at some future, perhaps, early, date homosexual practices between adult consenting males are no longer a crime. Would it not he an offence if even without obscenity, such practices were publicly advocated and encouraged by pamphlet and advertisement? Or must we wait until Parliament finds time to deal with such conduct? I say, my Lords, that if the common law is powerless in such an event, then, we should no longer do her reverence. But I say that her hand is still powerful, and it is for Her Majesty's judges to play the part which Lord Mansfield pointed out to them.
I make no apology for having quoted that at length. When Lord Simonds argued the case that they were the custodians of the morals of society, he knew all about the Wolfenden Report. He knew perfectly well that shortly we should be faced with a Bill to reform the law on homosexuality, and he recognised that, once such a reform comes about, it will result in prurient advertisements and encouragement to engage in these practices, because the professional pimps and prostitutes who are male will seek to make additional money, and it will be far harder to catch them since they will not be guilty of any offence unless they can be caught living on the immoral earnings of prostitution—and the Bill has had to make special provision for that event.
If we are to amend the law at all, the only sensible way would be to say that Parliament wills that two men may do what they please in private, however

perverted it may be, but the moment that it impinges upon public society, upon an outrage of public decency or upon public morals, the moment that they engage any third person in their repellent acts, we shall apply by Statute what is the common law of today. That is the basis, in substance, of Amendment No. 54, which I should like to see in place of Amendment No. 2.
I have enlarged upon that particular aspect first for this reason. We recognise that when, ultimately, the Bill leaves here it will go to another place. When it goes to another place there will then, no doubt, be an opportunity to consider what has been said with regard to subsection (2).
I do not believe that the main sponsor of the Bill—he is too intelligent a man for that—or, indeed, the other sponsors, who are all persons of acute intelligence, like subsection (2). I do not think that they like the Bill as it stands, with this ludicrous provision that if a third party is present then the persons concerned can be sent to prison for a long period of years, whereas if there is no third person they can do what they like.
Hon. Members will have an opportunity to deal with what happens in railway sleeping cars and situations of that kind when we come to other Amendments, but what we have got to try to do in the Bill before we turn to consider which of these alternative Amendments shall now be the subject of further consideration is to recognise, first, whether we ought or ought not to leave out lines 10 to 14.
We are in some little difficulty, a difficulty which I am sure my hon. Friends and those who support the views I express will wish to develop in future, because if we support Amendment No. 2 with our vote we would leave out lines 10 to 14, and if we do that we would, of course, harm the very interests which we seek to serve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has now departed for the Middle East and is not with us tonight, after having dealt with the girls on Thursday. I thought that it was a little unfortunate, if I may say so to the Home Secretary, that the girls were treated as being very much less important and were given Thursday while the Government


seemed to prefer the boys by giving them right through to 2.30 p.m. today. But this does give us an opportunity of developing our arguments without being unduly short of time.
Regretfully, we must oppose Amendment No. 2. At the moment we will not have the opportunity to be able to leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert the Amendment which we would seek to put in at this stage. All we can really do, therefore, is to seek to draw the attention of the public to what, I think, has not really been fully understood.
The real trouble has been that the sponsors have been trying to seek a compromise so as to get something through the House. They have, in a sense, been assisted by some apathy in this field which has fallen on many members of the public as a result of the large numbers of committees, and so on, which have set up. We have got a bit far away from what is the essence of homosexuality, which is completely different from the principles in the case of the ladies and abortion.
In this case, the essence of the whole matter is—it makes one laugh at times because one needs a sense of humour or one gets a little out of context—that in the case of homosexuality the first issue we have to decide is whether we ought to countenance it at all as being something quite contrary to nature. A large number of people believe that there should be a criminal sanction for many reasons; but I should be out of order if I developed that point.
If it is to be permitted, the next question is: To what extent? What has been said consistently, not only about homosexuality, but every form of public lewdness or obscenity, is, "Please, not in public." There was a Member of this House who stood upon the parapet at Drury Lane in 1600 and peed upon the people. It was held that he had been guilty of a grossly obscene act, and he was duly punished.
Whatever else we do, we cannot have homosexuals parading their homosexuality in public. Subsection (2) as it stands is not wide enough. It is an effort, but the way to do it is not to count heads and to say that if there is a boy looking over one's shoulder the act does not count as being private.

Mr. Gower: Is it not much more serious and ludicrous than that? Does not the present wording mean that if two homosexuals begin such a practice and a third person arrives during its commission they will be guilty of an offence?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes. One must bolt the door. One must not allow a "peeping Tom" to get in, because if he did one would be guilty, even if he was aiming to enjoy himself and one did not know that he was there. Therefore, this is a nonsense. One cannot just specify a public lavatory. The farce of doing so will be illustrated by my hon. Friends speaking to Amendments which they have thought out, and I shall not deprive them of their pleasure. They will show what a ludicrous nonsense subsection (2) is. One has only to consider the public parks to realise what a mockery the Bill is. If a homosexual act is done outside the public urinal in Hyde Park it is not an offence, but if it is inside it is.
What is Parliament doing? What do we imagine that the Indians, Ghanaians and Jamaicans—people who thought that all law and order came from this country—will think of the Home Secretary if he allows this drivel to get on the Statute Book? I would rather help him draft a Bill that made some sense than leave it in this form, because it will mean absolutely nothing, and will add just one more unfortunate piece of legislation at a time when we are trying to bring forward thoughtful social legislation which will make the Home Office respected throughout the country.

Mr. Dance: To return to the question of peeping though doors, would my hon. Friend agree that it is possible that homosexuals might go into a hotel room where one can see through a window? Would somebody looking through commit a crime? Do we know?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am sure that the Home Secretary will send for the Attorney-General to advise my hon. Friend, when he makes his own speech on the matter, whether such a person would be present within the meaning of subsection (2,a). It would be a matter for a ruling by the judge as to whether a "peeping Tom" was regarded as being present or not.
We had one or two cases of actors or actresses engaged in various exhibitions in which other people watched their performances. In those cases it was held that the voyeurs were part of the exhibition and the performance and were watching, and that as they were participators in an obscene exhibition they could he convicted of the offence. Therefore, there is some precedent for saying that any person watching the participants would be guilty. On the other hand, if they did not know that they were being watched. I suppose that it would be said that the burden of proof would he to show that they knew that they were being watched and I suppose that they might get out if they were able to show that they did not believe that they were being watched.
12.30 a.m.
Not only in this Bill, but in many other Acts we have made mistakes because we tried to count heads or numbers. If we merely refer in an Amendment to when a person does a "lewd, obscene and disgusting" act which outrages public decency, whether it is a "lewd, obscene and disgusting" act which outrages public decency is a matter for the jury on the direction of the judge. It would be for a jury to say, if a third person was present, whether it was deliberately a lewd and disgusting performance.
Suppose that there were two homosexuals in a tent on Epsom Downs on Derby Day who allowed people to come in to watch. That has happened in an exhibition of women. If it happened with men, it would be a lewd and disgusting exhibition which outraged public decency. I quote from a case in 1860 in which that very thing happened in an exhibition on the Downs.
But what we who oppose the Bill so strenuously are concerned about is that we simply do not believe or accept that if we permit grown men to be allowed to enjoy these pleasures—s—

Mr. Norman Atkinson: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is becoming extremely expert by sheer practice. This is the fifth time that we have been round this particular piece of track. We seem to be getting to know the argument thoroughly. I wonder whether there is any point in appealing to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the

hon. Gentleman to enliven the proceedings by some fresh thinking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said was out of order. If he becomes repetitious, I shall have to apply the appropriate rule.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This is the only occasion since 1956 on which I have spoken in the House for more than 20 minutes. I am now doing so because I think that there is quite a number of hon. Members who do not know as much about this subject as they think they do.
No doubt there is a number of people who think that they know about this subject. Unfortunately, I know nothing about homosexuals from my personal knowledge, but I know a fair amount about the subject because I think that I can claim that, of any Member on either side, I have had to do more cases concerned with their practices than any other Member. I should have thought that that could not be gainsaid.
I therefore speak with knowledge. I hope that I have not been repetitious. I do not think that I have. I quoted a long extract from Lord Simonds because I felt that the pith of this matter, which has never got across to the country, is the argument which needs repeating in the sense that one must point it out in different ways, namely, that there is a world of difference between allowing people to do what they like in private and allowing them to do what they like in public.
I should not wish to stop people doing outrageous acts of immorality of the normal kind in private, but if they indulge in these practices in the terms of this Amendment, I am saying that we should safeguard the public entirely by not permitting any form of intrusion into public society. There are various forms of it.
One question is whether one can contain it by enjoining that this safeguard shall apply only in urinals or public parks—physically in a place—or whether it not much better to do it by coming to principles. One is public indecency which must relate to a place and the other is general, dealing with good order in society, and I think one can contain it to that extent, and that we should seek to do it in any way that we can.
In every way, all forms of corruption, if seen to take place, corrupt other people. If one goes to a party and people are "pushing" pills and saying "This does not do any harm", other people take them. If one goes to a party at a university where there are pretty girls and two or three men say "Let's see if you can make it" and the girls are seduced, other men get a better chance, and if two or three do it other girls copy and you get more immorality. Equally, if it is a party of boys. All corruption creates a wider realm.
It is said that the Bill is designed to be concerned precisely with the acts of those who have grown up to be homosexuals in private. We have so to circumlocute and surround the Bill with these Amendments that it will be able to achieve only that very limited purpose. I would have wished to develop some of the other themes of these Amendments, but I see that a large number of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to speak to the other Amendments and other aspects of this wide-ranging subject. I have deliberately contained my argument to the one Amendment because I anticipate those we shall have on the other six.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins) rose—

Mr. Gurden: On a point of order. On Friday morning it was ruled by the Chair that the mover of an Amendment had the right of reply. I raise this now because I may well not get an opportunity if another Closure is put on the debate, as we expect. Would you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. as your colleague did, whether that still applies?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member is asking me whether he will have a right to reply, the answer is, "No". The mover of the Amendment, and only one has been moved, has a right to reply. That is, of course, subject to the Closure.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Had the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) not addressed the Committee for 50 minutes, I would have proposed to allow a few other hon. Members to intervene before I intervened, but I thought that in view of, I will not say the excessive, but the considerable length of his speech, it might be convenient if I were to intervene at this stage.

Mr. Gower: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for a Minister to say that he allows hon. Members to speak? Surely, that is completely out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was intervening for the benefit of the House. The length of a speech is a matter of fact and not of judgment or comment.

Mr. Gower: Further to the point of order. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly said that had not there been a long speech he would have allowed other hon. Members to take part in the debate. I suggest that that is completely out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the practice for Ministers to intervene and for the Chair to call them when they intervene. I do not think that anything which has been said has been out of order or improper.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I intended to convey to the House, which, I am sure, was obvious to all hon. Members, except for one or two who are rather over-excited, like the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), that I would not have risen and endeavoured to catch your eye at this stage had it not been for the long, but, no doubt, interesting speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, who speaks in a most impressive way, said that he had not addressed the House for more than 20 minutes since 1956. I cannot recall the exact length of his speech, and I am glad to say that I cannot recall that speech in 1956. What I do recall is that I have never heard the hon. Member addressing the House on any of these important social or criminal matters in which he did not imply that nobody but himself understood the depths of depravity with which we were dealing. I would not like directly to refute him in that proposition which he puts before the House, but I think that a little occasional modesty and a little occasional willingness to believe that others may at least have some hint of a view of what he is talking about would not be entirely unreasonable.
The Amendment which the hon. Member moved was an Amendment which, as he said, was, rather surprisingly, jointly in the name of himself and of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who is not here tonight—and perhaps that is just as well, because I think that there are many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who welcome the absence of the hon. Member for Chelmsford even more than they would welcome his presence on this occasion.
The purpose of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, to which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet subsequently put his name, was to make the Bill in one sense very much wider and to impose no limitations concerning privacy and public lavatories. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet used the Amendment as a sort of paving Amendment by which to introduce another Amendment of his own, and I would like to say a few brief words about his Amendment and other Amendments which follow.
First, however, perhaps I may deal with the Bill as it stands with the lines which are proposed to be left out in order, in the view of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, to put nothing in their place and, in the view of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, to put something different in their place.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet spoke as though what we were proposing was the most appalling liberal monstrosity which was forced down the throats of the House, to the great shock and dismay of people in Ghana and various other places—which he mentioned with, I thought, an element of hyperbole, but I am not quite sure—as a result of an excessively liberal regime in the Home Office or in other Government Departments.
Perhaps I may remind the hon. Member, although this may not entirely commend the Bill as it stands to some of my hon. Friends, that the subsection which he has attacked in such excessive language was moved by the Viscount Dilhorne in another place and that the Tellers in favour of the Amendment were the late Earl Kilmuir and Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, so perhaps we

need not take his strictures on that point too seriously.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Mr. Rees-Davies rose—

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman spoke for 50 minutes. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way.
The hon. Gentleman proposes that we should substitute:
(a) by an act of a lewd, obscene and disgusting nature and outraging public decency"—
I cannot roll the words round my mouth in quite the way the hon. Gentleman did, but I shall do my best—
or
(b) by conduct injurious to public morals by tending to corrupt the mind and destroy the love of decency, morality and good order.
I cannot think of any words more subjective, and, therefore, more vague and more uncertain, and less satisfactory than those, and I cannot, from any point of view, believe that this would be a substantial improvement.
Then we have Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 in the name of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), the first of which would bring in a public park, the second of which would bring in land or woodland, and the third of which would bring in premises occupied by somebody by virtue of his employment. I do not think that any of these Amendments are necessary. I think that this can be dealt with by the normal laws of public decency, and that if any of them were to be accepted a most anomalous situation would be created; and in any event they are faulty from a technical point of view.
Then there is Amendment No. 51, again in the name of the hon. Member for Totnes, though on this occasion supported by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), which proposes to insert:
in a British Railways sleeping car.
This Amendment would also have a curious effect. It would exclude a sleeping car owned by British Railways, but not one owned by Wagons-Lits. It would also create the somewhat anomalous situation by which an act, if performed either in a sleeping car or in a lavatory on the train, would make the person subject to the criminal law, but if performed elsewhere on the train would not make him necessarily so subject, which I


do not think is entirely the object which the hon. Gentlemen have in mind. In any event, the whole subject is thoroughly and adequately covered by the fact that an act of indecency would, prima facie, be a breach of railway byelaws which prohibit riotous, disorderly, indecent, or offensive behaviour on the railways. Therefore, I would advise the House that all the Amendments are unnecessary.

Mr. Mawby: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Home Secretary for throwing cold water on the Amendments and giving us some advice which no back bencher can hope to get in the ordinary course of events. As I said on earlier Amendments, I am not wedded to the words of any of my Amendments. I am really concerned with the principle.
I think that it is important to consider the history of this matter, because in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) tabled a similar Amendment. Unfortunately, because it was a starred Amendment, it was not selected, but during the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" he explained why he had put it forward. I think that there is some substance in what he said, though I do not necessarily agree with his point of view.
My hon. Friend said:
I have a particular objection to subsection (2). My first objection is that if there is to be a Clause attempting a definition of privacy it should be phrased in positive rather than negative terms. The whole approach to this subsection is vitiated by the fact that it is framed in negative terms. Avoiding the problem of a positive definition of privacy, it goes on to attempt two rather arbitrary limitations on the conception of privacy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 19th April, 1967; c. 18].
My hon. Friend then went on to make a number of references to Wolfenden, trying to base his argument upon firm foundations; and his argument was simply that all one needs to do is to lay it down that an act by consenting adults in private is all right. Full stop.
That is what he wanted to put forward, but we have, instead of this, these two—and only two—exceptions which are clearly laid down. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 reads:
An act which would otherwise be treated for the purposes of this Act as being done in private shall not be so treated if done—

(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or

(b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise."
I will not labour the point about more than two persons being present, because my hon. Friend has already spoken about it. But there are anomalies. The Home Secretary informed us, when he quoted the names of those illustrious people who give support to these exceptions being specifically written into the Bill, that this was sufficient; but if there are to be these two specific exceptions then I say that they are not enough.
That is the reason why I have sought to put down one or two Amendments which cannot be exclusive. They can only be examples of what must be covered if one is to specify exemptions and exceptions. This is a point which the Home Secretary, with all his care, did not reply to at all. I would refer to the first Amendment, which is concerned with a public park to which members of the public have access.
If the Home Secretary had said that the courts have, or might have in the future, decided that an act in a public park would not be construed as being an act in private, then my Amendment is destroyed. Yet the right hon. Gentleman did not even attempt to deal with that particular point. So I want to point out to the House that in public parks, to the knowledge of all of us, there are parts in which, indeed, one can see ail sorts of activities going on which offend some people, but from which other people steer away. I am referring to heterosexual activities. Is it to be the case when this Bill passes that homosexual activities can be condoned or ignored as heterosexual activities are at present?
It is a valid question. If the homosexual act was construed by a court as not being in private, then I should be glad to hear what the Home Secretary has to say. Furthermore, there are places other than public parks. We have large areas of land and woodland which are available to the public, but which are not necessarily public parks. They are not laid out as parks are generally understood to be. Sometimes they are in private ownership, but, because they have footpaths and rights of way, people use these areas at weekends and in their


leisure time. Most of us have become accustomed to meeting and ignoring courting couples.
If the Amendment is not accepted and the Bill becomes an Act without this exemption, can we be satisfied that in future we shall not come upon homosexual acts which give great public offence? Some hon. Members may feel that to see a homosexual act in a woodland would not give offence, but that it would give offence to the general public. That is why this is an essential Amendment.
The next Amendment covers premises which either person uses by virtue of his employment. This covers factories, workshops, offices, and so on. It is important that these premises should be covered. In the past, employers have found this sort of thing going on in their premises. It should be made clear that neither Parliament nor society is prepared to countenance this sort of activity in a place of work, or even in premises used by either person by virtue of his employment. The acceptance of the Amendment would deal with many of the difficulties which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). It would cover university premises and the living quarters of those involved.
The Home Secretary rightly had some fun at my expense on the question of British Railways sleeping cars. I do not begrudge him that, but the point involved here may have escaped his notice. The Bill does not apply to Scotland. Night sleepers regularly run from Euston to Edinburgh, Glasgow, and so on. If the Amendment is not accepted perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me what the situation will be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Stop at Carlisle!"] This is a very important point. As far as I can see, two persons who have adjoining sleepers with a communicating door will not be committing any act which is against the bylaws of British Railways—

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: May I remind my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary is so ignorant that he talked about Wagons-Lits running to Scotland. There is no such thing. If he cares to go to King's Cross or Euston he will find that the sleeping cars are ordinary British Railway

sleepers. There are no Wagons-Lits in Scotland.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I talked about them—

Mr. Gurden: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have one intervention on top of another?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is certainly not the practice to have an intervention upon an intervention, but I thought that in this case it might clear the air and allow us to make progress.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I was talking about Wagons-Lits running from Dover to Victoria.

Mr. Mawby: The important thing is that two passengers who occupy adjoining sleepers after boarding a train at Euston are committing no breach of British Railways by-laws if they indulge in this practice, but as soon as the train crosses the border and goes into Scotland they are committing an offence. Is this the right way to leave a Bill? Are British Railways sleeping car staff to receive special instructions to blow a whistle at the border?

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Dance: Or possibly call, "All out!".

Mr. Mawby: Although we can all see the humour at this hour, this is a serious matter.
The Home Secretary may say that only the Procurator-Fiscal could prosecute, and would give everyone the benefit of the doubt and say that it was all right as they got on at Euston. But two men would be in grave danger, and this is wrong. The Amendment would mean that, in the lavatory of the train or a sleeping car, the act would be legal, but anywhere else on the train would be illegal, and would be covered by British Railways by-laws relating to a public nuisance. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer my point. He must have thought that the last Amendment would not be moved, as he did not refer to it, and I would have thought that that matter could safely be left to the prison authorities.
Those hon. Members who agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford have a well-based and logical case,


that these acts must be between consenting adults in private, without exemption. If it is thought, as the sponsors and the right hon. Gentleman think, that certain exemptions are necessary, the two which are provided are not nearly enough to make it clear not only to us and the general public, but to the courts, who will have to make the final decision, not about what Parliament meant but about what the Act will say—

Mr. J. T. Price: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest and some agreement. Would he not agree that the most serious departures are not the exceptional cases of woodlands and parks and railway sleepers, but private clubs for the enjoyment and promotion of homosexual activities? I should want the Home Secretary to give more serious thought to this. We all like a joke, but this is not a matter for levity. When we liberalised the betting and gaming laws, much to the abhorrence of many, including myself, we went too far. and now my right hon. Friend wants to tighten them up—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making a speech, not an intervention.

Mr. Mawby: I agree entirely with the hon. Member.
The reason I did not deal with that this evening was that we debated in Committee a new Clause which was specifically designed to deal with clubs which set out to take advantage of homosexuals and those prone to these practices. I apologise to the hon. Member, but if I repeated that I would be out of order. I certainly agree that this is an important matter, and so is the point about privacy.
There will be those who will go into the Lobby having decided that there should be no exemptions at all. On balance, I think that there should be exemptions, but they are not enough. If the sponsor went so far as to say that, regard less of the wording of the Amendments which may be very bad indeed, he accepted the principle I have tried to establish, he would go some way to carrying me along with him.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I rise for only a few moments to raise what I think an important point which

emerges from the Home Secretary's speech. He, I think, was more concerned to amuse the House than to enlighten it. It is very important that this point should be elucidated. I am glad to see the Attorney-General present. Perhaps it is a question for the Attorney-General rather than for the Home Secretary.
We are dealing with the criminal law. We are dealing with an offence for which people have been punished in the past and defining an area in which they may be punished in future. It is as well rather seriously to discuss exactly what the law we are to pass, if we are to pass it, is to mean. The main purpose of the Bill is to legalise, or, at any rate, to remove from the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and from the common law, acts done in private by two consenting adults. Until I heard the speech of the Home Secretary, I was more or less under the impression that I knew what was meant by the words "in private", but, having heard his speech, I am in serious doubt as to what those words mean.
If the purpose is to legalise, or, at any rate, to remove from the ambit of the criminal law an act done in private, it is important that Parliament should use language which makes clear both to the courts and those accused of offences what is meant by "in private". If the Home Secretary's argument—if it can be called an argument and not a jeu d'espirit—amounted to anything, it amounted to saying that what is done in a public park can be done in private. Is that the view of the Attorney-General? Is what is done in a public place something which is done in private if only two people happen to be present? If so, I do not understand the meaning of subsection (2) as it stands.
The subsection says:
An act which would otherwise be treated for the purposes of this Act as being done in private shall not be so treated if done—
(a) when more than two persons take part or are present;
If the only test of what is done in private is the presence of two people and no more, I can understand what the Bill is trying to say. It would be a perfectly rational test and a relatively easy one to apply, although relatively difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the witness to a homosexual act would be likely to give evidence.
If there is a conception of what is done in private other than that, I think that we should know what it is and how definite a meaning can be attached to it in law. Is what is done in a railway train, to which people have access on payment of their fares, done in private or not? Is that which is done in a public park done in private or not? People should not be left in doubt about this. We are entitled, either from the Law Officer, or the sponsor of the Bill, or someone else, to have a more definite and precise answer to the question than that which the Home Secretary has given the House.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The broad position about what is in private stands, and has been accepted by another place, on the Wolfenden approach to this matter. The Wolfenden Committee thought that it was for the court to decide whether public decency had been outraged and thought that in general there would not be any greater difficulty in establishing this for homosexual acts than for heterosexual acts. But, in addition, the view was taken in another place that there should be included this special provision relating to public lavatories, which is obviously a social feature of homosexuality as opposed to the heterosexual act. There was also the provision about more than two people being present, to deal with any possible danger of orgies developing.

Mr. Hogg: With respect, I do not think that the Home Secretary has applied his mind to my difficulty. Although it may be immoral, the heterosexual act is not illegal in the sense of being criminal. Broadly speaking, under the 1885 Act, which the Bill does not seek to repeal, the homosexual act is illegal in the sense of being criminal. There are a number of common law offences which have been mentioned by their old-fashioned names in the debate and which are also intrinsically illegal in the sense of being criminal. That is not true of the heterosexual act.
Although one can understand that the House of Lords would be satisfied in the case of heterosexual acts that only those things which can easily be witnessed in the case of heterosexual acts would be against the criminal law, this is not so, intrinsically, about the Bill. What the

House must apply its mind to in the Amendment and the Clause is this: two adults who may be contemplating conduct of a homosexual character want to know whether they are protected from prosecution. One must consider this as a serious question, because people cannot be left in doubt as to whether they are committing criminal conduct. The 1885 Act deals with what used to be called a complete offence—an act of gross indecency—which is intrinsically still illegal, because we have not repealed either of those provisions; but that is not criminal if it is done in private. As far as I know, the Act does not contain a definition of what is meant by "in private". Originally, I thought that I knew, but the Home Secretary's speech has put me in considerable doubt.
It is not good enough to talk about the Wolfenden Report, because the courts will not be able to refer to the Wolfenden Report. It is not a document which one can cite in court as an authority for what the statute means. Juries will not be able to hear the Wolfenden Report. It is not good enough for Parliament, as a law-making body to say, "We shall leave it to the courts and to juries to decide what is in private and what is not", especially when we cannot even answer a straight question whether what is done in a place such as a public park is in private or in public.
The Attorney-General owes the House some guidance—or perhaps the sponsor of the Bill would give it, because he has not approached the matter in quite the light-hearted spirit of the Home Secretary.

1.15 a.m.

Sir G. Nabarro: Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down, and to follow his argument, is he aware that in paragraph 64, on page 25, the Wolfenden Report takes this very point, and starts off with these words:
Our words 'in private' are not intended to provide a legal definition"?

Mr. Hogg: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I had not recalled that phrase, but it does support the argument I was putting forward. If Parliament is to pass this legislation it must be clearly in such form that the courts will know what to do and the public will know what not to do.

Mr. Abse: That paragraph to which reference has been made continues:
It is our intention that the law should continue to regard as criminal any indecent act committed in a place where members of the public may be likely to see and be offended by it …
The view taken in the other place by Lord Dilhorne was that the conduct should be deemed to be in private unless more than two persons are present when the homosexual conduct takes place; and that if there are only two people that should be regarded as in private. Of course, if it takes place in a public place—

Mr. Speaker: This is a long question to ask before the right hon. and learned Member sits down. The question must be brief.

Mr. Abse: To come to a conclusion, the distinction I put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that understood in another place, that if it was likely to be observed, and in a public place, the courts would be in no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was not taking place in private.

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to prolong my remarks, which were intended to be extremely short, but I am not reassured by this. If the Bill had used that language, that if an indecent act is committed in a place where members of the public may be likely to see it and be offended at it, I thing that I would have found the expression intelligible, but the Bill does no use this language. It uses a phrase which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) reminded me, was deliberately intended not to have a precise, legal significance.
One has to ask what is meant by the phrase as it is in the Bill. When considering an Amendment which would omit or qualify or extend the phrase in Clause 1(2), one finds that neither the Home Secretary has given us any rational account of the matter, except to refer us back to the Wolfenden Report, which is not a legal document; nor, apparently, has the sponsor of the Bill been able to do more than say that the phrase is one which was not to be put into the Bill.

Mr. Dance: I will be extremely brief. I refer to Amendment No. 51 and British Railways sleeping cars. I do not

know whether I would be in order if I were to extend that to cabins in British Railways packet boats, but I believe that they would be a similar category. There could be a very difficult situation for two people enjoying their particular form of amusement—it does not appeal to me—aboard the packet, and being within the law if the Bill is passed, if they suddenly found the vessel arriving at—shall we say?—a Scottish port.
Would they then we breaking the law? Where is the law broken? Within the three-mile limit? Or has the vessel to tie up? I feel that we should have had more clarification about this whole subject. After all, let us face it, these people—I do not agree with what they do—ought to know exactly where they stand. Where do they stand? I hope that one of the Law Officers or the Home Secretary will give us this information, because it is extremely important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) spoke very well, if I may say so, on the subject of sleeping cars, but the argument applies just as much to the cabins of packet boats—perhaps more so, because when one arrives over the border in a sleeping car on the railway one knows more or less where one is—or so one hopes—but tides may change and one may be anchored outside for some time before coming in to land. Who is to warn these unfortunate people when they are or are not breaking the law?
Again, as my right hon. and learned Friend asked, when two, three or more people are involved what is the situation in relation to the "peeping Tom"? Two people indulging in these practices may imagine they are unobserved and they may be all right. On the other hand, they may think that other people of the same convictions would like to look in on them, and may pay to look—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgusting."] I know that it is disgusting but it could happen and it does take place, I gather, in other countries.
If that takes place, who is to blame—the two people concerned, or the people organising the "peeping Tom" episode? Or are they all concerned? I do not agree with these practices, I do not like them at all, but I think that those who indulge in them should show where they they are. Are they within the law if they indulge in these practices at the


three-mile limit and outside the law when they tie up alongside? This may sound funny, Mr. Speaker, but I do not intend it to be funny at all. It is an extremely serious subject—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I accept that the hon. Member regards the subject as serious, but he must link his seriousness with one of the Amendments we are now discussing.

Mr. Dance: I was about to sit down, Mr. Speaker.

I want clarification on this question of railway sleeping cars or cabins in boats, and on the question of who is the criminal in the "peeping Tom" case?

Dr. David Kerr: Dr. David Kerr rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 27.

Division No. 420.]
AYES
[1.25 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Albu, Austen
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamling, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Allen, Scholefield
Haseldine, Norman
Pardoe, John


Archer, Peter
Hobden, Denis (Brighton, K'town)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Astor, John
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Barnes, Michael
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Richard, Ivor


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Huckfield, L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Brooke, Edwin
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Chapman, Donald
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Skeffington, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Stonehouse, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell (Foltham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dell, Edmund
Kirk, Peter
Swinger, Stephen


Dewar, Donald
Luard, Evan
Taverne, Dick


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lubbock, Eric
Teeling, Sir William


Dobson, Ray
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacDermot, Niall
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th&amp;C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ellis, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Walters, Dennis


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitaker, Ben


Ensor, David
Maddan, Martin
White, Mrs. Eirene


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moonman, Eric
Yates, Victor


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford&amp;Stone)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Gardner, Tony
Newens, Stan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Gregory, Arnold
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Ian Gilmour.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Sharpies, Richard


Dance, James
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Summers, Sir Spencer


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tomney, Frank


Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Grant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Sir Gerald Nabarro and




Mr. Harold Gurden.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

Clause 3.—(REVISED PUNISHMENTS FOR HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.)

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 17, with which we are taking Amendment No. 28, in page 3, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (1).
Amendment No. 28 is consequential, and, therefore, I shall not refer to it at all. Later, we shall discuss what the penalties should be if there were to be a reduction, so I will not refer to that.
What I am concerned with in this Amendment is the general question of reduction of the penalties, and there are

the house divided: Ayes 116, Noes 5.

Division No. 421.]
AYES
[1.30 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Gregory, Arnold
Orme, Stanley


Albu, Austen
Crimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamling, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Allen, Scholefield
Haseldine, Norman
Pardoe, John


Archer, Peter
Hattersley, Roy
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Astor, John
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pavitt, Laurence


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hooley, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Barnes, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richard, Ivor


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Howell, Denis (Smalt Heath)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, L.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Brooks, Edwin
Hunt, John
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Stonehouse, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Swingler, Stephen


Dewar, Donald
Kirk, Peter
Taverne, Dick


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Luard, Evan
Teeling, Sir William


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Walters, Dennis


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitaker, Ben


Ensor, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
White, Mrs. Eirene


Faulds, Andrew
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Montgomery, Fergus
Yates, Victor


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&amp;Stone)
Moonman, Eric



Cardner, Tony
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stan
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Goodhart, Philip
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Ian Gilmour.




NOES


Bullus, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Channon, H. P. G.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Sir Gerald Nabarro and


Farr, John

Mr. Harold Gurden.

only two questions relevant to my Amendment. The first is whether there ought to be a reduction, and the second is, if there ought to be a reduction, is this the right way of doing it?

These are the two points to which I shall address my mind, but I should mention this one other point; it is important to remember that in Amendment No. 17, which relates only to Clause 3(1), we are dealing only with buggery. There is rather a tendency to refer to the act of homosexuality, or homosexuality in general, which, I think, confuses the discussion. In the subsection to which I am referring we are only concerned with the offence of buggery, not with other kinds of homosexuality.

The position at the moment is very simple. On any conviction for the full


offence the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is some confusion about this. One hears just that the penalty is life, but that does not mean—and is not within a mile of meaning—that life is obligatory, or even that it is often given. All it means is that the courts have a complete discretion in the case of a conviction for this particular offence of either binding over the convicted person if they think right, or of giving any other sentence—a long, fixed sentence which ensures a minimum time in prison, or a sentence of life imprisonment which brings with it all the consequences of any other sentence to life imprisonment.

So the situation at the moment is very simple. In the case of all convictions, regardless of what the age is, the court has this scope. It may award any sentence up to life imprisonment. That would remain the position if my Amendment was carried. What I would seek to do here, instead of monkeying about with it in the very complicated way that this subsection does, is simply to get rid of the whole thing and let the courts examine each case and say what is right in that particular case.

1.45 a.m.

My first reason for advocating getting rid of the whole subsection is that the present position is right and should not be altered, and my second is that what is proposed is so very bad. I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will be amenable to argument and persuasion on this point, which has nothing to do with the basic merits or demerits of the Bill, or whether it should become an Act. The case is strong.

Let nobody think that I suggest that the position should stay as it is because I want to see many people who are convicted of the offence sent to prison for life. That would be a very superficial view, and it is not in my mind. The public does not concern itself with legal niceties. Hon. Members sometimes get a little impatient with them and so do the lawyers sometimes. My arguments do not depend on them.

The public sees what sentence Parliament thinks proper for a particular offence, and for the offence with which we are concerned Parliament has provided a maximum sentence of life im-

prisonment. The public regards that as marking the importance we attach to the offence, and acceptance by Parliament that in certain circumstances it can be so nasty that this very heavy penalty should be available. If we change it, the public can only regard that as meaning that we do not consider the offence to be as serious as our predecessors did.

I am not talking about an archaic rule of law. Two hundred or 300 years ago penalties were savage. A person could be hanged for larcency of 6d. or more. Such penalties are long since out-dated, and the law would rightly lose the public's respect if they were retained. But the penalty for buggery was confirmed as recently as 1956. If we now say that we shall not retain life imprisonment even for the worst possible cases, but shall reduce the maximum sentence to 10 years, the public's only interpretation will be that Parliament does not now regard the offence as being as serious as it did 10 years ago.

Sir S. Summers: Would my hon. and learned Friend say to what extent under the Clause life imprisonment will remain for an act of buggery with somebody under 16?

Mr. Percival: I will if my hon. Friend will bear with me, but I should like to do so in a particular order because, if one gets diverted, picking up the threads of one's argument adds seconds to the debate, and I do not want to do that.
My second reason for saying that the position should be left as it is is this. What have we to lose by keeping it as it is? At present, the courts are given a complete discretion about what they should do. As we have heard in debates on another subject, to pass a sentence of life imprisonment may not be nearly so inhuman as it sounds. In fact, imprisonment for life may mean that a much shorter sentence of imprisonment is served than a fixed term. It may even mean less than 10 years.
How it works out in practice is this. If a man is sentenced to imprisonment for life, he passes out of the hands of the judiciary and into the hands of the Home Office. Therefore, in the sentence of imprisonment for life the judges have the weapon which they may need in a case in which they say, "We think that


this man is sick, not in any of the senses which enable us to make an hospital order, but in the sense that we think that he needs treatment. We do not think that a very long sentence of imprisonment is right, but we do not know what to do with him, so we sentence him to imprisonment for life and then the Home Secretary takes over".
Secondly, anybody who has taken an interest in the Bill would, I think, accept that the degree of heinousness in this offence is about as wide as it could be. Some cases are of very minor importance, while others are of immense importance. One has only to consider how the courts have used this very wide power to realise how valuable and well used it has been, because for this offence the sentences vary from probation or a £10 fine to very long sentences in the very bad cases in which the court, on the information before it, is of the opinion that the public needs protection.
Those are two not insubstantial reasons for leaving the position as it is: first, to show the public that we still regard this as just as serious a matter as it ever was; and, secondly, so that the courts, which are in possession of the facts, may have the widest field of remedies open to them.
The next reason why I want the House to reject the subsection in toto is that it is so very bad. I can best illustrate that by saying what I think the position would be if it were accepted. It is here that I come to the point put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). I make no bones about this. It is a very complicated subsection. It takes anybody who tries to work out what it means a deal of time and thought, and it is possible that one could be wrong.
I hope that when I have given my interpretation, if I have made a mistake someone will correct me, and that, if I have not, serious consideration will be given, during the debate, to justifying the extraordinary position which would result—that in three cases life sentences would still be available to the courts. One is the case of buggery with a woman. It appears to be most extraordinary that in the case of commission of this offence with a female prostitute, whatever the age of that female prostitute, it would

remain an offence, even if it had been in private, because the Bill only relates to committing that offence with a man, in which case the sentence would be life imprisonment. This seems to me an extraordinary state of affairs, and one not less calculated to preserve respect for the law.
The second case is that of bestiality, a kind of buggery, the details of which I need not go into, and in which, I think, everyone agrees the life sentence should be preserved. The Under Secretary of State indicates dissent. Is he indicating dissent from my proposition that the life sentence would still be available, or that it should be? Will he indicate which?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): In due course.

Mr. Percival: That would appear to be clear from the reading of subsection (1). If one reads that with the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, in a case of buggery with beasts the life imprisonment is to be kept.
The third case is where one man or both are under 16. Here one has a number of anomalies. If one commits this offence with somebody of 15 years and 11 months, the maximum sentence would still be life, but if one committed it with someone who was severely subnormal, who although 21, might have a mental age of 10, provided that one did not know he was subnormal it would not be an offence, and even if one did know, the sentence would only be ten years. There seems no rhyme or reason, for in these cases there is no change but in others there would be. The question of penalties arises only where there has been conviction, so this subsection applies only where there are offences of which one can still be convicted.
I pay tribute to the promoters of the Bill for having accepted that even in cases where both parties are over 21 there are still some cases in which it should be an offence. My understanding of that is: where it is not in private. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) raised a question of immense importance on the last debate, and that is not irrelevant here. I doubt whether any hon. Member here tonight would now feel with any certainty that he now knew


what is meant by "in private". It is regrettable that when a point of that importance is raised, the debate should be closured before there has been an opportunity to discuss it fully. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will bear that sort of consideration in mind as the night goes through, because there must be a little more co-operation than that if we are to make a job of it.
2.0 a.m.
The promoters appreciate that even where two people are of full age there must still be criminal offences and criminal sanctions in certain cases. The first of them is where the act is committed and not in private, whatever that phrase means. It must be an offence which must be committed when others are present, whatever that means. It must be an offence if it is committed in a lavatory. It is still an offence if committed between the members of a crew of a Merchant Navy ship on that ship. It is an offence if it is committed without consent.
I am sure that what the promoters have in mind in that case is not simply physical rape, not simply the lack of consent like that. They have in mind two other kinds of cases in which there will be no consent. One is where somebody is so perverted that he drugs a person in order to take his pleasure of him, and thus the offence is committed without consent. I dare say, and I hope, that the promoters also have in mind those rather blurred distinctions between true consent and apparent consent
What is visualised here is cases where the act is done without consent in any of those ways. It would be an offence to do it to somebody who is severely subnormal, subject to the proviso in the subsection. It would be an offence for an officer on the staff or employed in a hospital or the manager of a hospital or mental nursing home, and so on.
Those are some of the circumstances in which the act of buggery will continue to be a criminal offence. I think that every Member of the House would agree that although I have tried to recount them dispassionately, even that little catalogue of them is an appalling catalogue of anti-social behaviour and of behaviour tending to corrupt public morals.
I do the promoters of the Bill the justice of accepting that they, too, take their view—that is why they are providing that it shall be an offence—but what would be the result of the subsection in those cases? It would be that the greatest possible punishment for the worst imaginable offence falling into any of those categories would be 10 years—that is, six and two-thirds years effectively with remission for good conduct but it is 10 years only where there is no consent. Where there is consent, the maximum is five years in any case. What is even more illogical under the subsection is that even in the case where there is consent, it is only five years where one party is under the age of 21 and one is over 21. If both are under 21, the maximum is two years, and if both are over 21 the maximum is two years. How can this make sense? Provided there is consent, the maximum, however bad the case, however persistent the offender, and provided no one concerned is under 16, the maximum is five years.

Mr. Dance: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that there are these tragic cases of very simple people, at times very young people, who are put in homes, being gulled by older people, with a little bit of bribery here and there? Would my hon. and learned Friend enlarge on this? Is not this very important?

Mr. Percival: What my hon. Friend says is important, but if he will forgive me I shall not allow myself to be diverted by anybody who is with me or against me. I have certain things to say, and with respect to my hon. Friend I shall say them in the minimum amount of time and he can then make his speech.
Where there is consent, however bad the case, however persistent the offender, and whatever the circumstances, five years will be the maximum. When one considers the difficulty of establishing lack of consent—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

2.8 a.m.

Mr. Percival: I was saying that where there is consent, no matter how bad the case, however persistent the offender, and whatever the circumstances, five years will be the maximum.
I ask the House to consider the difficulties which arise in connection with consent. It is very difficult to say what is consent, and what is not, and under the Bill the onus will be placed on the prosecution to prove that there was not consent if it wishes to establish it. When the onus is put on the prosecution in any case, it is a very high one, and I suggest that as a practical matter the proportion of cases in which the prosecution will manage to establish lack of consent will be very small. We should, therefore, assume that in most cases the 10-year provision which will apply where lack of consent is proved will not be available.
I think that the House ought also to remember that the consent of any child over 16 will do. If he has consented, the maximum will come down to that provided under subsection (1,b). On another Amendment we discussed the difficulties if presents are given, if a young man is taken out, is taken to the pictures, and so on. I understood the promoters of the Bill to say that would be consent. There could be consent by a subnormal, or a severely subnormal, person. The severely subnormal person is covered by Clause 1, but such a person is only one of the categories of the mentally defective. Hon. Members may recall that I read to the House last Friday week part of the definition of "severe subnormality", but in this Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. and learned Member cannot go into all this matter on this Amendment. He can talk only of what the punishment should be.

Mr. Percival: It depends, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what one is punishing for.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Member has gone into great detail about what the punishment should be, and he must confine himself to what should be the maximum.

Mr. Percival: With respect, that comes under the next set of Amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Member has already given a

great amount of detail about punishment and about what constitutes the offence.

Mr. Percival: I have spoken about the difference between the sentences. I say that bringing the 10-year sentence down to five would be something which most of us would have thought should not have been done; it should not have been reduced by that amount.
My last point—and I forget whether you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I first mentioned it—is that I want this to be left out simply because I consider it to be thoroughly bad.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was in the Chair when the hon. and learned Member began his speech.

Mr. Percival: I would draw the attention of the promoters of the Bill to lines 12 to 15 of the subsection which I move to leave out of the Bill, because I think that here something has happened by accident. Those lines read:
and the maximum punishment prescribed … for an attempt to commit buggery with another man (ten years) shall not apply where the other man is of or over the age of sixteen".
As I understand, what that is doing is removing the maximum; and if one removes the maximum, then let us remember that that is usually a limiting factor.
As I understand, these lines are removing the maximum and, therefore, removing the limit. All one is left with is something to the effect that the court is entitled to send the man to prison—but without any maximum being prescribed. This may have been done in error, because if not, and the promoters of the Bill are going to tell me that it is right, then what they are doing is removing the maximum in the case of the full offence.
That would be wholly illogical and I draw the attention of the promoters of this Bill to it. I suggest that for the twin reasons I have given, first, that the position as it stands is rational, sensible and practicable and that, secondly, what is proposed here is riddled with anomalies and absurdities, it would be wise to leave subsection (1) of Clause 3 out altogether. If a change is needed, then it would be far better to start all over again.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to follow my hon. and learned Friend in his disquisition on the first of the Amendments under discussion. I want to put to the Under-Secretary a definite question on Amendment No. 28, which proposes to leave out lines 29 to 40. The point can be stated in a few words.
If the hon. and learned Member will look at lines 29 to 33 he will see that the Bill substitutes—so that they will be part of the substantive law when the Bill is passed—the following words:
If with a boy under the age of sixteen or with a woman or an animal, life …
I have been trying to hold the scales fairly, evenly and objectively and have not tried to take up much time, but I feel that I have a watching brief for the criminal law if the Bill goes through. It seems absolutely intolerable if the total effect of the Bill is to be that if a certain act is done with a consenting male in private it is no crime, but that if it is done with a consenting female in private it is a crime for which the offender can be sent to prison for life. This seems wholly irrational. Will the Under-Secretary give an undertaking that if the Bill goes through he will alter that situation in another place, or, alternatively, introduce some kind of sexual offences amendment law which will get rid of it?
The other and closely related point concerns animals. I am sorry to raise this painful subject, but probably not more than once in 25 or 30 years has one the opportunity of talking frankly about things of this kind. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary thinks that this sort of activity with an animal should be a crime. I have often had great doubts about it. We go to assizes and hear these pathetic and revolting facts deployed in public about an unfortunate young man—very often engaged in agricultural pursuits—and we wonder what public money is being spent upon.
I suppose that it is arguable that such people need medical attention and, therefore, should be brought before the courts so that they can receive it, but whatever else they should get I am sure that it is not imprisonment for life. I am not trying to dogmatise about the situation, but let us be frank about it and say that these people never do get life imprisonment. I have never heard of a sentence of

life imprisonment being given for an offence with an animal, and I should be horrified if I did. I do not believe that this has ever been done in my lifetime.
But here we have a Clause which reinserts those penalties in subsection (4) in respect of women and animals. I ask the Under-Secretary to give a clear undertaking that if the Bill becomes law this situation will be tidied up. It is intolerable to impose a life sentence in respect of offences committed with animals or consenting women in private.

Mr. Taverne: First, I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). He said that his Amendment did not go to the merits or demerits of the Bill and could be judged separately from the basic amendment in the law that the Bill brings about. I am not sure that his Amendment can be regarded as irrelevant to the merits of the Bill.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's first Amendment would introduce unacceptable anomalies. He says that the penalties, even if not enforced, show public attitudes, but as they are, they show extraordinary contradictions in those attitudes. Thus, two adults who consented in private to homosexual acts would face no penalty unless they were under 21, when they would face life imprisonment. They would face it also if they committed the acts in public. This is an absurd gradation of penalties—

Mr. Percival: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite fair. There is only the possibility of life imprisonment.

Mr. Taverne: But this would show a contradictory public attitude.
As far as I know, life imprisonment is never imposed except in a few cases of pederasty, which these provisions would cover. In 1964, the last year for which I have figures, the severest penalty imposed was one of 10 years. I do not know the circumstances, but I should have thought that a 10-year maximum was severe enough.
The point of substance concerns the anomalies which still remain over life imprisonment for certain kinds of bestiality and buggery with a woman. This is an anomaly and anachronism in the Bill. I completely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone


(Mr. Hogg) and completely disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Southport, who felt that life imprisonment should be kept for acts with animals. The difficulty is that the Bill deals with homosexual acts and a reform of the law on these offences would not come within the Long Title.
But I can give an undertaking that these kinds of offence will certainly be reviewed. In a speech over the weekend, my right hon. Friend forecast a programme of law reform. It is intended to review sexual offences, although, if the Bill becomes law, these kind of anomalies will be eradicated, and this field of law will be urgently re-examined.

Mr. Paul Channon: If it does not become law, surely the anomalies which my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned should still be looked at?

Mr. Taverne: The question of sexual offences would still be looked at, but the anomalies would not exist to the same extent if the Bill were not enacted. If it were, there would be anomalies in different and contrasting penalties.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Although these matters affect only England and Wales, I hope that hon. Members who will take part in the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee later this morning will regard my speaking now as a reciprocal gesture.

Among those of us who oppose the Bill there is a real fear that it will produce an increase in homosexual activity and indecent acts in private and public. I know that the promoters do not intend this, but if this activity does increase, and large numbers of these clubs do open, with a real danger to the nation's moral fibre, should there not be reserve powers of control which could be used with flexibility? If we leave the law as it stands and retain the penalty of life imprisonment as something which could be used, but, as has been admitted by all who have spoken in this debate, is not generally used, is it not wise to take powers of this sort which could be used with greater intensity if there were a tendency for the matter to get out of control?

Reference has been made to the betting and gaming legislation, which was enacted with the best of intentions but with the result of an increase in gambling and of setting up clubs. The passing of this Bill could result in a big increase in homosexual activity. Even if it is in private that is difficult to define. I hope that my hon. Friends will think seriously about this matter, which is the only one I raise tonight.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "ten" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 20.

Division No. 422.]
AYES
[2.26 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Ensor, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Albu, Austen
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fernyhough, E.
Judd, Frank


Allen, Scholefield
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Barnes, Michael
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kirk, Peter


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gardner, Tony
Luard, Evan


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
Lubbock, Eric


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gregory, Arnold
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Brooks, Edwin
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
MacDermot, Niall


Cant, R. B.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Macdonald, A. H.


Carmichael, Neil
Hamling, William
Mackintosh, John P.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Haseldine, Norman
McNamara, J. Kevan


Channon, H. P. G.
Hattersley, Roy
Maddan, Martin


Chapman, Donald
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Marquand, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, J. J.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Montgomery, Fergus


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Huckfield, L.
Moonman, Eric


Dell, Edmund
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan


Dewar, Donald
Hunt, John
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Ellis, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


English, Michael
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pardoe, John




Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walters, Dennis


Pavitt, Laurence
Silverman Julius (Aston)
Whitaker, Ben


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Skeffington, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Richard, Ivor
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stonehouse, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow E.)
Swingler, Stephen
Worsley, Marcus


Rowland, Christopher (Merlden)
Taverne, Dick
Yates, Victor


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George



Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mr. Eric G. Varley and




Mr. Ian Gilmour.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dance, James
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil



Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mawby, Ray
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Mr. Ian Percival and


Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Mr. Mawby: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 6, to leave out 'ten' and to insert 'twenty'.
It was notified by Mr. Speaker that, with this Amendment, we shall be discussing a number of other Amendments dealing with similar matters of the penalties. The Amendments can be broken down into two definite groups—perhaps more, but there are two main groups.
This Amendment deals with the question which we discussed earlier, the question of age. Here we are dealing with the term of imprisonment which the person can be given as a penalty; if he commits the act with a boy over 16 where the boy has given his consent, the new penalty will be five years' imprisonment, or, if consent was not given, 10 years. The House has made a decision earlier on the question of the age and has accepted that a boy of 16 is capable of giving consent within the meaning of the Bill. Therefore, there is not much point in my discussing that, and, indeed, I should be out of order if I were to discuss it any further. We are left with the point that this is the new penalty for a man who commits buggery with a boy of 16 or over.
The important question one has to ask is: how serious is this offence? How serious do we in this House consider this offence to be? How serious are the courts likely to regard this offence? We shall see from the type of sentences they will give. The difficulty is that under the Clause, if left as it is, the courts will be restricted to a greater extent than they have hitherto been.
Up to now the courts have been able to decide what sort of penalty ought to

be meted out to a person who commits buggery with a boy of 16, and they have been able to work within a very wide area, in that the maximum penalty has been life imprisonment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) pointed out in a previous debate that the courts very rarely give the maximum. While this is true, nevertheless it surely is right that the courts ought to have some way of showing to the offender how serious they believe the case is, and therefore, ought to be able to mete out the sort of penalty which is required.
We all read with great interest what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said at the weekend. There are already people who are tending to say, this may be very well, but is this not tending to lay down a harsh rule of thumb whereby the courts will be hampered still further?—in that they will be able, with 12 men good and true, to decide whether the person is guilty or not, but at the end of day will be tied much more to the penalty which they can administer, instead of, as now, having an area within which they can operate and can impose the penalty they believe fits the crime.
Therefore my attitude is, that the change, which the Bill makes, from life imprisonment for this offence to a term of five years, really ought to be given more justification before the House can accept it. However wicked the judge believes the offence to be, he is tied to the maximum penalty.
I shall not make another long speech on consent, but I say again that a boy of 16 is incapable of giving consent as we and the courts would understand it. I therefore think that it is wrong, in the


Bill, to jump from a maximum offence, with the court able to decide, in the light of its view of the offence, the sentence that should be imposed, to a point where the imprisonment is reduced in one case to not more than five years. This is doing injustice to the courts, and not doing what I think is necessary to show that we are out to protect young people at the most difficult time they can face.
I dealt with this point earlier and I do not propose to deal with it in detail again, but it is a mistake to reduce drastically the maximum sentence the judges can impose. To reduce the sentence to this amount is quite wrong.
When we last discussed the Bill, the Home Secretary said that he had the same powers in relation to those committed to prison for life for this offence as he had in relation to convicted murderers. The court rarely imposes the maximum sentence, but even after a man has been sentenced to what the court may think is the right period for the offence that has been committed, the Home Secretary can review the sentence and let a prisoner out on licence if that is, in his view, necessary. I much prefer the present situation, in which the courts have full powers to impose the maximum penalty if they think it right in the circumstances, but with the Home Secretary having the power to release the prisoner on licence if he thinks that the circumstances justify that course of action.
That is the first main point of this group of Amendments, and the second point is one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on the last occasion. In very many of our Amendments we seek to add the words "or a fine." I will not, at this hour of the morning, seek to repeat the main points of my hon. Friend's argument, but I was seized of the point made by the promoter of the Bill when he said that to send a homosexual to gaol was very much like sending a sex maniac to a harem. There is a good deal in what he said.
The point of the Amendments, therefore, is to ensure that the courts will not be completely restricted in the penalties they impose, but will be able to consider whether, by sending a man to prison, they will be making his degradation worse, and will then have an alterna-

tive sentence which they can impose on him.
The question of a maximum fine of £1,000 is obviously a matter for those dealing with the subject and one is open to advice on this point. The figure has been suggested mainly to express the principle that, in these particular cases, while one does not say that, in future, all the courts should impose a fine for this offence, they should have it within their power, after taking all the facts into consideration, to decide whether to imprison or fine.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Gower: The promoters of the Bill have been at some pains to explain that the sanctions against those committing offences of this nature against children are in no way weakened by the Bill and are, indeed, in some respects strengthened. I cannot, therefore, understand why they should want to weaken the sanction against those committing such an offence against persons just above the age at which they would be classified as children.
An offence of this kind against a boy of 16 can be in certain circumstances a horrible and dreadful thing. It can inflict a permanent injury on him for life; it can distort his manhood; it can change the direction of his life. Surely we should give similar protection to a boy of 16 as is contained in the Bill in respect of offences against children. I do not think that we can make this easy distinction between children and boys of 16, even 17. I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will consider these marginal cases.
The proposal for a financial penalty may commend itself to hon. Members on both sides as an alternative. One would imagine that there will be cases in which such a fine would be more appropriate than imprisonment.

Mr. Taverne: On the question of a maximum penalty of imprisonment, the same point arises here as on the last Amendment. In practice, the courts have found that a 10-year penalty is as severe a punishment as they are likely to impose.
On the question of a fine, the Amendments are wholly mistaken. As I have pointed out, in the case of an indictable offence, the courts have an unlimited power to fine now. Therefore, the Amendments are otiose. In some ways, they are


also undesirable because, for some cases, they would give power to impose a fine of £1,000 to magistrates' courts, which is not a power that we have given them in the past.

Mr. Gurden: What we have heard from the Under-Secretary of State does not answer the point about the effect on the general public of removing a long sentence of imprisonment and reducing it in some cases to a five-year penalty. We are not getting enough answers to the questions which are being put up. Some of us did not serve on the Standing Committee and we do not have the benefit of what took place there except by reading the proceedings. We do not know what is in the minds of the promoters.
It is important to realise that all the supporters, as named on the Bill, are not here tonight to support it. It has been the practice for a very long time that hon. Members, when speaking, should declare their interest. I am not suggesting that the supporters of the Bill, or those who are voting against all the Amendments tonight, have a direct interest which they ought to declare and tell us about—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the hon. Member tell the House, and, if not, will he tell the Chair, what he meant by those words?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not hear the words used to which I call attention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat when I am on my feet. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time. I understand that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. As one who was intimately connected politically with a victim, whom I respected and trusted and whose word I always believed, a man of great courage in the service of his country, a man of integrity, a man who was sent to prison for four years from this House after having already endured several years' imprison-

ment—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the point of order?"]

Mr. Hale: The point of order, if it is not understood, is that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) has said that hon. Members have a personal interest in the Bill. He started to say that the promoters of the Bill had a personal interest and then he said, which was even more offensive, that he did not insist that they had a personal interest. What does he mean? If we are to bandy accusations about the Chamber, I will start to do it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of that point of order, I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he was intending to make reference to the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

Mr. Gurden: Certainly not. Had I been allowed to finish what I was saying I do not think that the hon. Member would have intervened. What I was about to say was that according to the figures we have heard and seen published there is quite a percentage of people who practise homosexual acts. It would be strange indeed, in a place of 600 Members, if there were not some here, but I have not heard anyone declare any such interest.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. May we have a Ruling on that observation? May I say to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was wrongly rebuked last week for making a sensible observation about a case that was sub judice, that I do not require his fraternal advice whether I should intervene. During the last six months I have not intervened in the debates in the House for more than a moment or two. On this occasion, I bitterly resent this line of comment. I am not prepared to go through the farce, night after night, of being told that I must keep my mouth shut because a Bill must pass without observation or criticism when one hears observations of that kind. I ask for a Ruling on the observation made by the hon. Member for Selly Oak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has not raised any point of order.

Mr. Gurden: I was not intending to accuse the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) or any other hon. Gentleman sitting in the Chamber at this


moment. I do not know, and that was the point which I was making—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: We do not know about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), do we? It might be interesting to know.

Mr. Gurden: We certainly know a few things concerning the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), about which it might be better to say nothing.

Mr. Faulds: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you possibly get the hon. Member for Selly Oak to enlarge on his last observation? If he is insinuating that I am one of the chosen few in the 600, perhaps he would tell us about it, because I do not know.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that was an undesirable remark which the hon. Member for Selly Oak obviously will wish to withdraw.

Mr. Gurden: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I merely—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Objection was taken to the hon. Gentleman's reference to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds). I think that he should withdraw that.

Mr. Gurden: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will certainly withdraw, if you wish me to do so. I did not think that I said anything wrong about the hon. Gentleman. I simply replied to his point about me, and I made the same one about him.

Mr. Faulds: I will make another about the hon. Gentleman—he has not the capacity for thought.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gurden: If the House rejects this Amendment, it will show to the public that it considers these offences to be nothing like as serious as the public think. By reducing the maximum prison sentence to five years, it appears that the promoters of the Bill do not object to a prison sentence for these sorts of offences in certain circumstances.
I am surprised that the promoters are not willing to raise the limit on the age

of consent. The arguments which have been adduced tonight should have convinced anyone that it is wrong for a boy aged 16 to have given consent to something that he knows nothing about and which in many cases he does not understand, and be exposed to this risk. I should have thought that the promoters would have been only too willing to increase the age limit.
As has been rightly said, if the life sentence is left as it is, nothing changes for offenders. The Home Secretary can reduce the sentence to whatever he thinks is necessary, as happens frequently in other cases. That is clearly a sufficient safeguard for offenders. There is nothing wrong in leaving it at life imprisonment—

Mr. Dance: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the Home Secretary should be listening to the remarks being directed to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Gurden: It would be interesting to have a fuller reply from the Home Secretary, or from a junior Minister. It would be more helpful if the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) gave the House the benefit of the answers which he must have to some of these Amendments. We have heard very little from the other side of the House. Having listened to the debate, and the short replies which we have been given, I came to the conclusion long ago that some of these Amendments ought to be accepted. If we do not get better replies than we have had so far, I hope that some of my hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby in favour of this Amendment.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Percival: At this time of the morning tempers get a little frayed and passions rise, but I want to keep what I say on this Amendment moderate in tone and, I hope, clearly matter of fact.
I did say, on my last Amendment, that there was a certain amount of overlapping, and I would say certain things on this. I limit myself here to the question whether, if one accepts as one must after the last Amendment that there should be reductions, it is right to reduce the figures to 10 and five. I think that one can


take the figure of five, because if the figure of five is wrong then I think that all would agree that the other figure which is tied to it is wrong also.
May I echo the closing words of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). With respect to the Under-Secretary of State—and I take his point about fines and have no complaint about that—his answer on the question whether the five and 10 were right was brief almost to the point of curtness. I suppose that he can be forgiven for that, because we are still told that this is not a Government Measure, so when he rises we must take it that he is expressing a personal point of view.
The person to whom we are looking for answers is the person in charge of the Bill, the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). If there is a simple and convincing answer he should give it to us, because I would suggest that it is very wrong if the debate on this important question should come to an end without him saying something about it.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Would my hon. Friend not agree that since the Government has taken the trouble to give time to the Bill the House is at least entitled to have a proper assessment of the Government's views on these important matters, rather than that they should allow a Measure to go through which has not had proper consideration?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the merits of the Amendment. We are on the Report stage.

Mr. Percival: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am not sure that I caught what you said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said we were on the Report stage. We must confine ourselves to the narrow limits of the particular Amendment before the House.

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that we were entitled to have the Government's views on the question before the House now, and that is the length of sentences.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: And I was saying that that is not relevant to this debate.

Mr. Percival: I rather gather that I have not gone outside the confines of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
What I was saying, and the way in which I related it to my Amendment, was this. I was expressing my opinion about the Under Secretary's reply to this Amendment, which must be relevant to this Amendment, and I was expressing the hope that we might hear from the hon. Member in charge of the Bill on this Amendment. I presume that is why you did not rule me out of order, because I think with respect that I am in order in both those respects.
If we are to regard this as a proper debate, then these comments must be in order, because they are very relevant as to whether this debate gets to the root of the matter and amounts to any sort of discussion of the point.
At the moment, all we have had is a curt reply from the Under-Secretary of State, delivered as though that is supposed to be the end of the matter and there is no need for anybody else to say anything about it. I do not share that view. We must remember that we are talking about a case of buggery where the boy is 16 or over, not where the act is committed between consenting males in private. We are talking about an offence where one of the parties is of such a tender age that we all think that he requires protection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot repeat the speech he made on his previous Amendment. He must confine himself to the question whether we should leave out "ten" and insert "twenty".

Mr. Percival: I fail to see how one can consider whether five or 10 is right unless one considers the offence the sentence for which is under consideration. That was all I intended to do, and I submit that it is a sine qua non; I cannot make my point without drawing attention to the offence. A man can be sentenced to five years' imprisonment in this country for cheating at games. Do we consider that to commit buggery on a boy of 16 is no more important than that?
There may well be cases where five years is too much, but I am not talking about minimum sentences. The courts have shown at least as much humanity as


the House in the leniency of their sentences, and have shown that they can distinguish between the good and the bad. With remission, five years means 3⅔ or 3⅓ years—my arithmetic is not very good at this hour of the morning. Do the sponsors really believe that it is right that that should be the maximum sentence that can be passed on anybody, however persistent, and however bad or disgraceful the circumstances? The circumstances may be very relevant. This is where consent comes in, and this is the point I deliberately did not make before because I wanted to reserve it instead of making it twice.
Where the consent of a boy of 16 is obtained by lures, inducements, presents, and so on, that will still be consent, and the sentence will be the only way the court can mark its revulsion at the way in which the consent was obtained. Five years may be ample for the majority of cases. But cannot hon. Members use their imaginations and see that there may well be cases where, because of the way in which consent was obtained from a 16-year-old child, because of the circumstances of the offence and, not least, the persistent conduct of the offender a higher sentence is needed? Five years is the maximum however many times that person has been convicted. But five years is fixed in the Bill as the maximum whatever the circumstances. If a man has been at it for a lifetime and has been in and out of prison and then, benefiting from his experience, obtains the consent of a child of 16, all that the court can do is to give him five years.
I could go on multiplying the examples. I do not propose to do so because I hope that what I have said is enough to show the danger which some of us on this side of the House feel. What have we to lose by putting in "ten" instead of "five"? We would gain in the public's estimation because it would indicate that we took a more severe view of the matter. That would be good. The promoters would be able to say to the public, "We thought carefully about this. We realised that five years might give the wrong impression and, therefore, we agreed to make it ten. This is an indication of how seriously we regard the matter".
Why limit the courts? There is nobody in the country, and certainly nobody in

the House, with half the experience of the courts in deciding what is right in sentencing. No one else has the facilities for getting all the facts. This is the job of the courts—to represent the public in delivering sentences. If they sentence too severely, there would soon be a public outcry and the matter would be put right. What is the sense of limiting sentences to five years? [Interruption.] An hon. Member suggests that we should get rid of the judges. I realise that some people want to do that and to destroy their authority as much as they can and put their job in the hands of the administrator. That is such an absurd argument that it does not merit argument.
Why give the courts the job of deciding what the sentence should be and then tie their hands behind their back? It is easy to see what we would lose by making the limit five instead of 10 years. It is easy to see a positive gain in saying. "We think we were wrong. We should allow discretion up to 10 years". I realise that the promoters, in fixing 10 years in one circumstance and five years in the other, are endeavouring to hold a balance between offences with consent and offences without consent. The reason for providing for a limit of five years instead of 10 is to emphasise that the offence is much worse when there is not consent. Therefore, the promoters say, "When there is not consent, the maximum shall be twice as much because the offence is twice as bad". That makes good sense.
Right or wrong, many of us consider that having these small penalties will create entirely the wrong impression in the country. Because we feel gravely concerned about this, and because this is a Private Member's Bill, we should like to hear from the private Member in charge of the Bill what his views are.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Abse: There is no desire on my part to do anything but to seek to reply, to the best of my ability, to the points made. I would like the hon and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) to believe that the fact that I resist the Amendment does not mean that I have not taken into account all that he has so clearly expounded.
It would help a little if I gave what I think he would seek, the general reasoning behind the new penalties enumerated


in this Clause. We have adopted the general attitude in the Wolfenden Committee, where it was quite clearly set out that was its opinion that in the past there had been excessive concentration on the physical nature of the act, so that we had disparities between buggery and gross indecency.
The Committee felt it was an inappropriate approach, and that the law should not only distinguish in some way between buggery and other sexual acts, but that the law should, in prescribing penalties, have regard to the gravity of the offences as measured by the circumstances surrounding the commission of the act and not merely the physical act itself. It is on that broad reasoning that we have seen certain increases of penalties in other Clauses and in this case, some modifications.
I cannot go along with the hon. and learned Member in suggesting that these are very small penalties. Ten years and five years are heavy penalties and some of us who have the task, at the moment, of examining sentences of long-term imprisonment know of the difficulties which may occur and the danger of trying to fit in rehabilitation. I do not apologise for sentences of 10 and five years for these grave offences.
Hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that a boy or young man of 16 may be regarded as incapable of giving proper consent, and that, therefore, the person who commits the offence can have a five-year instead of a 10-year sentence. I would point out that courts take into account whether consent was real and whether it was given under duress or occasioned by fright. The courts are perfectly capable, as amply demonstrated by a dozen precedents, in deciding whether there is a real consent, of taking into account the age of the person who is reported to have given consent.
For these reasons, and not because I want to treat this perfunctorily, I cannot recommend that the Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. James Allason: My approach is on the need to protect youth. The great danger is that the youth of the country will look at the effects of the Bill and think that homosexuality is a practice which is, perhaps, not necessarily desirable, but at least is

now sanctioned by this House. I am, therefore, against any proposal to reduce sanctions against the aspects of these practices which are still illegal.
This is lessening sanctions against practices which many people find extremely objectionable. These now become nearly legal. When a man is charged with an offence with a boy who is 20½ years old, it will undoubtedly be said, "What bad luck. If only he was six months older, it would not be an offence. Therefore, it is only a very small offence and it should be overlooked." The basis of the trouble of many supporters of the Bill is a belief that this is something which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with that on the Amendment. We are dealing with what the penalty should be for the offence.

Mr. Allason: Quite, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My argument is that the penalties require to be increased rather than reduced, as they are being reduced under the Bill. The Amendment seeks to increase them.
I am trying to explain that imitation is dangerous, because—this is a reason which has not been brought out tonight—it is not an offence which is ingrown or born in people, but is something which can be gained by imitation. I would say that 95 per cent. of those who practise this offence have gained it by imitation and that it is only 5 per cent. who are, perhaps, born that way. Therefore, this matter of imitation is of the greatest importance in relation to the Amendment.
If imitation is made more easy by reduced penalties, that is highly relevant. It is a fact that only a very small number of people are born that way and that most of them come to it through imitation. The particularly dangerous lime is in adolescence; it is known as the plastic adolescent stage. Many people pass through that stage at the age of 16 or 17 and pass out of it altogether, but some people are trapped in it for a long time. Therefore, it is all the more important to ensure that those of the age of 16 or 17 should not be contaminated. Those who harm boys of 16 and 17 do immense damage. It is extremely important that the offence of dealing with those who are so young and so liable to be corrupted


at that stage should be considered carefully.
Besides the effect on the individual who is attacked, there is also the effect on those of his companions who watch, who see this behaviour going on and who hear it talked about. For those of 16 and 17, it will be, "Oh, isn't it a romantic thing? This is what we will be allowed to do when we are grown up. We are not allowed to do it now, but it is rather exciting." That is the great danger of the Bill. Therefore, it is necessary to have substantial penalties for committing offences with those under the age of 21.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has put clearly the question of a five-year sentence. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said that a five-year sentence was a very long time, but it is a maximum sentence and would not normally be given for a first offence. Is five years really a long time for a persistent offender? Is five years really a sufficient penalty for a man who, time and again, goes out to look for consenting youths? I do not believe that it is. I think that a sentence of 10 years is necessary in these circumstances.

Mr. Goodhew: I think that it has escaped general public attention that this part of the Bill is extremely important. So many people have tended to think of this Bill as being one merely to legitimise homosexual acts between consenting adults, which is the principal provision of the Bill. I think that insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that we are being asked to reduce considerably the sentences which will be imposed on those who are dealing with people under 21.
I cannot share the cavalier attitude of the Under-Secretary of State on this question of sentence. When we say that this is too large a reduction from "life" to 10 years, he brushes it aside by saying that in practice it is never more than 10 years. He has failed to apply his mind to the effect which there is likely to be on people when they hear that the maximum penalty has been reduced by the House of Commons from "life" to 10 years for somebody of 16 or over. This is the important thing to remember, it is not a question, necessarily, of the

sentences which are imposed by the courts. It is the effect on the moral attitudes of people, and these are affected considerably by the maximum sentences or punishments which are available.
We have seen—and I shall not pursue the matter in any detail—the effect of the abolition of hanging as a punishment for armed and violent criminals. [Interruption.] Does the Under-Secretary of State wish to intervene?

Mr. Taverne: No.

Mr. Goodhew: I wish that I had the benefit of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remark, but I shall not pursue the matter.
All I am saying is that the effect of these changes can be considerable. I have no doubt that young men of 16 and over will now think that this is a much less serious offence than it was considered to be. They will not be able to think any other way. It is bad enough that we have decided, or that the House appears to be ready to decide, that it should not be an offence when the person is over 21, but in respect of a person under 21 we are being asked to reduce the sentence to an absurd period.
The Government, who have given time for the Bill, which is supposed to be a Private Member's Bill, should pay more attention to this matter. We should have heard a good deal more of the Government's view than we have done. For a junior Minister merely to brush aside this set of Amendments—I think that there are eight or nine of them—with just a curt half-dozen words seems to me to be treating the House with scant respect. The hon. and learned Gentleman is grinning happily now. I do not see what there is to grin about. There are people who are worried about what this House is doing, and it does not help when a junior Minister makes curt speeches instead of answering in detail the points raised by hon. Members, and then proceeds to grin.
The Government found time for the Bill. They should, therefore, have made certain that it was a sound and sensible Measure. The effect of this Clause, and the refusal of the sponsors of the Bill to accept these Amendments to increase the sentences, will be very bad. This will have a widespread effect on the moral


attitudes to the unpleasant offence amongst the young people of this country, and the Government must bear their share of responsibility for this state of affairs.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Mawby: If I might have the right of reply, Mr. Speaker, I would say, shortly, that I do not think the Under-Secretary has done the House any service by the perfunctory way in which he has dealt with these Amendments. At the same time, I thought it extremely interesting for the promoter of the Bill, in his Ninny brief remarks, to go to great lengths to point out that the courts were perfectly capable of deciding whether consent was properly given or not, whether under duress or not, and so on; but that while the courts were perfectly capable of deciding on matters surrounding the guilt or innocence of the accused those same courts were to be hamstrung in many cases by not being able to award the sentence they honestly believed was deserved.
It is surely illogical to say that a court is perfectly competent to decide if a person is guilty or not—whether the other party gave consent or not—while at the same time saying the court is not competent to say what sentence shall be given

for the offence committed. I hope, therefore, that all my hon. Friends will support me in this Amendment to raise the maximum and give the courts the power they should have.

Sir C. Taylor: I must raise my voice again in protest against our not being allowed to vote on each—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wants to criticise the Chair in its selection of the Amendments and the selection of Amendments for Division, he has a Parliamentary way of doing it.

Sir C. Taylor: I put to you, Mr. Speaker, with great humility that, in the past, we have had many Amendments on many Bills taken quantatively—taken together—but with a vote on individual Amendments. Why are we not allowed to do that tonight?

Mr. Speaker: I have already explained that his narration of the customary procedure is inaccurate. I have decided the Amendments upon which Divisions shall be taken.

Question put, That 'ten' stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 17.

Division No. 423.]
AYES
[3.35 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Gardner, Tony
McNamara, J. Kevin


Albu, Austen
Ginsburg, David
Maddan, Martin


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gregory, Arnold
Marquand, David


Allen, Scholefield
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mendelson, J. J.


Archer, Peter
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamling, William
Montgomery, Fergus


Barnes, Michael
Haseldine, Norman
Newens, Stan


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hattersley, Roy
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Booth, Albert
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orme, Stanley


Boyle, Rt Hn. Sir Edward
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brooks, Edwin
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, L.
Pardoe, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hunt, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Chapman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Richard, Ivor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;st.P'cras, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dell, Edmund
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Judd, Frank
Ryan, John


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th&amp;C'b'e)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ellis, John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ensor, David
Kirk, Peter
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Skeffington, Arthur


Fernyhough, E.
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stonehouse, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.
Swingler, Stephen


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford&amp;Stone)
Mackintosh, John P.
Taverne, Dick




Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
White, Mrs. Eirene
Yates, Victor


Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)



Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walters, Dennis
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Eric Moonman and


Whitaker, Ben
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Ian Gilmour.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Bullus, Sir Eric
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cordle, John
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.



Giles, Rear-Adm Morgan
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Ray Mawby and


Gower, Raymond
Percival, Ian
Mr. Harold Gurden.

Clause 8.—(RESTRICTIONS ON PROSECUTION.)

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Amendment No. 44, with which I think it will be convenient to discuss Amendments No. 46, in page 5, line 6, to leave out from 'man' to 'buggery' in line 8, and Amendment No. 47, which, I understand, is consequential, in page 5, line 10, at the end to insert:
'where either of those men was at the time of its commission under the age of twenty-one:
Provided that this section shall not prevent the arrest, or the issue of a warrant for the arrest, of a person for any such offence, or the remand in custody or on bail of a person charged with any such offence.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Abse: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 5, line 6, to leave out from 'against' to 'buggery' in line 8 and to insert 'any man for the offence of'.
In reaching these last selected Amendments, the House will be aware that there were misgivings in Committee about certain anomalies, which the Amendments are an attempt to meet. They try to avoid two dangers which caused hon. Members concern. The first was the case of a long-standing relationship between two partners, one of whom was just over 21 and the other just under. The second was that of an older man who had been seduced by a man under 21 or blackmailed by him.
The House will appreciate that the Bill requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions when the police wish to prosecute the younger man in either category. They are free to prosecute the older man, although this may not do justice between the offenders. This arises particularly in a case in which the younger man is the black-mailer.
These Amendments seek to cure this and to ensure that where the parties to the offence are an adult and a minor the offence can be looked at by the Director of Public Prosecutions as a whole. I hope those who were members of the Committee and still are not happy at the manner in which we have approached this matter will agree that it would be quite unfair to the police if we did not leave them free to take action without the necessity of trying to find, what may be a difficult task, if the consent of the Director could be obtained.
The second Amendments adds the proviso to Clause 8 to make it clear that the necessity for the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions does not include the arrest of the offender. There are similar offences which can be prosecuted only with the Director's consent. I hope that the House will accept these Amendments. I stress that they would give some possibility in very difficult across-the-line cases where those concerned are just above or under the line, for the Director of Public Prosecutions to give consent and to look at the whole of the circumstances in which there is an older and a young man engaged, perhaps, in the process of blackmail.

Mr. Percival: I see that there is a difficulty here, but I suggest to the promoters of the Bill that although it is too late in the day to put it right there is a chance for the Bill to have refinements made to it in another place. That is why I want to express the worries I have about it at the moment.
I am not sure that I understand that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was postulating a case where the two persons committing the act of buggery together was a situation in which one would be guilty of the offence whereas the other would not. I cannot see how such a case could arise. If one of the


persons is under 21 I understand that both would be guilty of the offence. Only if neither is under 21 is either not guilty. I suggest that the hon. Member has got the opposite of what he intended.
The result of these Amendments would be that where both parties were of full age and there was, therefore, no question of corruption of anyone under 21, the circumstances would be such that the maximum penalty would be two years. One would be postulating the least in these series of offences and the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be necessary. Under the Amendments, on the other hand, in a more serious category of case where one of the parties was under 21, the consent of the Director would be required.
I do not want the House to think that I am insensible of the difficulties of deciding when to prosecute, but I doubt whether it is right to do as we so frequently do—always to pass this difficult question on to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He is there to prosecute, not to decide who shall be prosecuted. It is for the courts to decide, after hearing the evidence, whether the circumstances are such that perhaps there should be no punishment or whether there should be substantial punishment. When one is considering the sort of crime in which there may well be cases in which, at all events, one would not want to see a person punished, it is tempting to say, "Let us get out of the difficulty by passing it to the Director of Public Prosecutions", in the mistaken belief that there is one individual, of responsibility and of standing, who will consider all these matters. We are passing so many duties on to him in one Statute after another that we must be passing them on to a group of persons, other than the courts, who act in silence.
This is of considerable importance, because when the courts deal with a matter the public know what they have done, and if the courts punish a man for an act of this nature when the public think that he ought not to have been punished, then the public have the chance to express their views loud and clear and the courts will pay regard to them. When we are giving discretion to someone who acts in silence, we are short-circuiting that procedure and the public never have the opportunity to express a view on

whether the action taken is right or wrong.
We have an anomalous situation under the Amendments. Where both parties are over 21, nobody's consent for prosecution is required. Where one of the parties is under 21, we pass the responsibility to the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is a difficulty—I will not enlarge on it—and I hope that the promoters will look at it again. One point with which I agree is the proviso at the end of Amendment No. 47.
A further reason why I myself am not attracted by this process of putting decisions on the Director of Public Prosecutions is that it provides quite often for a wholly unmeritorious defence. Somebody in the hurry of instituting proceedings has forgotten to get the Director's consent, and the point is taken at the trial; if the consent is required and the consent has not been obtained, the court is obliged to take the point, and one does see that, because Parliament has provided for this consent, and somebody in haste has forgotten to get it, a man who ought to he tried, and, if found guilty, ought to be punished, gets off on a wholly unmeritorious technicality. This is a further reason why one should be careful not to extend the scope of this sort of provision too far.
I understand—and I shall be glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if I am wrong—that it is really to that last possibility that the proviso which is the last part of Amendment No. 47 is directed; that it is to rule out a possible argument. I think that it has been argued that the institution of proceedings starts with the arrest or remand in custody, and I assume that the intent of that proviso is to deal with that difficulty, should it arise. Though I have not much sympathy, for the reasons I have mentioned, for the first part of the Amendment, I am in sympathy with this desire, because one thing I do not want to see is escaping on wholly unmeritorious technical arguments. I therefore invite the promoters to look at it again and consider whether they have done what they want to do, because I am just as anxious to see that they have.
There was an argument at the Old Bailey not more than about a month ago as to what is the point of time at which proceedings are instituted; because once


that point of time has gone, if the consent has not been obtained before that point of time, and it is past, there is nothing that can be done about it, unless the man can be charged with some other offence. It was held in that case at the Old Bailey that the moment the parties were brought before the court, and charged with such and such a charge, the committal proceedings started, albeit formally; even simply with evidence of arrest, the proceedings were started; and it was held that consent not having been obtained by that time, though it had been obtained by the time of the next hearing, it was too late and the count had to be quashed.
I invite the promoters to have another look, to make sure that in this proviso they have achieved what, I agree with them, is a point which ought to be covered—the one meritorious point of these Amendments.

Mr. Hogg: I am unhappy about this Amendment and I should like to say why. It may be that I am entirely wrong, and that because of the late hour I have misunderstood the Amendment, but I want to put my difficulty frankly before the House, and perhaps either the promoter of the Bill or the Under-Secretary of State will reply.
As Clause 8 of the Bill stands, as I understand it, it provides—and I think it is an acceptable provision—that if one of these two potential offenders is under 21 the Director of Public Prosecutions consent is required for prosecution. That is intelligible, because one can understand why one does not want to prosecute a young man, even if an offence has been committed, without careful consideration being given to the situation.
4.0 a.m.
On the other hand, the supporters of the Bill have said from the very start that they do not wish in any way to encourage people, or make it difficult for people to be prosecuted who corrupt youth. I fully accept that. The promoter of the Bill has been perfectly consistent about it. He has said it, and I believe him. But this being a Bill which is only to enable those who, being adults and consenting, do certain acts in private to be free from the danger of prosecution, I wonder what the effect of the Amendment is.
Unless I have misunderstood it, the effect is that no consent of the Director is required where it is alleged that the act was done without consent. That is quite plain from the Amendments. Again, no consent of the Director is required where it is not done in private—whatever"private" may mean. If not done in private, no consent is required. But if either party is under 21, it seems to me that on the Amendment, as distinct from the Bill unamended, that consent is required. Is that desirable? It means that if a man commits an offence on a boy of 14 or 15 the consent of the Director has to be required every time before one prosecutes.
What is the justification for that proposal? The promoter gave us to understand that all he was doing was to try to meet a few misgivings expressed in Committee, but I believe that he is doing a great deal more than meet misgivings because, as I understand the Bill, without the Amendment, the county prosecutor is in any case perfectly free to prosecute a man who interferes with a boy of 14, as he is at present as an ordinary matter of police procedure.
What the promoter of the Bill now seems to be proposing is that where the very worst cases occur the Director's consent should first be required. That is the case where there is deliberate corruption of youth by a grown man. I will not have that. I am against that, if that is the result of the Amendment, as I think it is. I do not think that the promoter intended that or he would not have let the House suppose that what he was doing was simply getting rid of a few misgivings expressed in Committee; for instance, getting rid of the case—the unusual case, but not unknown—where the young man corrupts the older one. I cannot believe that it is right to say that no prosecution should take place for an act of gross indecency and sodomy where a mature man is accused of corrupting a young boy. I believe that that would be the effect of the Amendment.
If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be told so, but if I am right, I oppose the Amendment most strongly.

Mr. Taverne: As the promoter of the Bill has said, the effect of the Amendments is to extend Clause 8 to provide


for the consent of the Director for any prosecution relating to an act between men where one of the parties involved is under 21, as opposed to the present provision where consent is required only in the case of the prosecution of someone who is under 21.
The Amendment arose out of a plea in Committee, and out of the borderline cases for which a special plea was made. We felt in Committee that this point was worth looking at, and we consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the best way of doing it. It had occurred to some that, perhaps, one way of dealing with these borderline cases to which my hon. Friend referred was to exempt certain classes, or to provide for the Director's consent being needed only in certain classes of case—for example, only in cases where there was any kind of homosexual conduct in private.
It was also thought that perhaps one should ask for the Director's consent in every case. But that would be going rather wide. It would mean that one would also require his consent in obvious cases, where there was clearly a public act or where there was clearly no consent. The Director felt that, if one was to have some provision of this kind, the best way to do it was the way suggested in the Amendment.
Any attempt to limit strictly the cases requiring the Director's consent would appear to involve some anomalies and it would be undesirable to ask the police to interpret some highly complicated consent questions—whether it was a case in which the consent of both parties to the act was needed or not needed, for instance.
The Amendment has the merit of simplicity and brings within the requirement of the Director's consent all types of cases over which disquiet is felt. I specify two particular types of case. The first is that of the long-standing relationship where one of the partners is just under 21 and the other is just over 21. It would be an extraordinary anomaly if, in such a case, we required the Director's consent in relation to the person just under 21, but not in relation to the person just over 21.
The other case is where the older man has been seduced by the man just under 21. The Bill requires the Director's

consent only in the case of the younger man. The advantage of the Amendment is that it enables the Director to look at a particular case as a whole, to judge it as a whole and not to separate it into two parts—one the act of the older man, just over 21, and the other the act of the younger man, just under 21.
I realise that there seem to be some anomalies, but in clear cases where an offence had been done without consent the Director would not be consulted. The Amendment leaves the police free to prosecute without his consent only in a case where the parties are adults and, therefore, where the offence was either in public or without the consent of both parties.
This requires a consequential Amendment for the reason stated by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival)—because there might be some doubt whether or not the requirement of the Director's consent precluded the right to arrest. There might be a case where proper enforcement of the law required an arrest to be made for a homosexual offence before there had been time to obtain the consent of the Director, and the consequential Amendment makes it clear that the power of arrest exists.
This deals with cases passing over the line. It is desirable that they should be dealt with. It would be an anomaly to have the Director's consent required in one and not in the other. The Amendment enables him to view an incident as a whole.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer a simple question? Suppose a man is found committing an offence with a boy of 16 or 18. Does it mean that, by this Amendment, the man would be prosecuted without the consent of the Director? That is what I want to know. I am not talking about people just under 21, but of those plainly committing an offence under the Bill by the corruption of youth. Does that require the consent of the Director under the Amendment?

Mr. Taverne: Yes. It does. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I understand that some hon. Members will be against that, but it seems to me that the evil the Amendment is designed to cure is considerable and that the Amendment should commend itself to the House.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

Division No. 424.]
AYES
[4.10 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hordern, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Cordle, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Edward M. Taylor and


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Ian Percival.


Gurden, Harold
Sinclair, Sir George





NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamling, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Albu, Austen
Haseldine, Norman
Pardos, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Allen, Scholefield
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Archer, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Reynolds, G. W.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Richard, Ivor


Barnes, Michael
Huckfieid, L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Booth, Albert
Hunt, John
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Brooks, Edwin
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Cant, R. B.
jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Ryan, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Chapman, Donald
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dell, Edmund
Kirk, Peter
Stonehouse, John


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Luard, Evan
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dunnett, Jack
Lubbock, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th&amp;C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitaker, Ben


Ensor, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
White, Mrs. Eirene


Faulds, Andrew
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Montgomery, Fergus
Yates, Victor


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford&amp;Stone)
Moonman, Eric



Gardner, Tony
Newens, Stan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Gregory, Arnold
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Ian Gilmour.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Question put, That those words be there in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 103

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 15.

Newens, Stan
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Orme, Stanley
Ryan, John
Whitaker, Ben


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Panneil, Rt. Hn. Charles
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Pardoe, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pavitt, Laurence
Skeffington, Arthur
Worsley, Marcus


Reynolds, G. W.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Yates, Victor


Richard, Ivor
Stonehouse, John



Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robinson.Rt.Hn.Kennett(St.P'c'as)
Swingler, Stephen
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Ian Gilmour.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Sinclair, Sir George


Channon, H. P. G.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Qulntin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cordle, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Walters, Dennis


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray



Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Ian Percival and




Mr. Edward M. Taylor.

Mr. Goodhew: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to. accept that Motion.

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 5, line 10, at end insert:
'where either of those men was at the time of its commission under the age of twenty-one:
Provided that this section shall not prevent the arrest, or the issue of a warrant for the arrest, of a person for any such offence, or the remand in custody or on bail of a person charged with any such offence.'—[Mr. Abse.]

4.27 a.m.

Mr. Abse: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It would be churlish of me if I did not first thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being present. I apologise for having kept you so long. It would be equally churlish if I did not thank all those hon. Members who have attended this prolonged debate.
I am grateful for the constructive criticisms from the Front Bench opposite, and I thank all those hon. Members who, although they have differed from me, have throughout almost the whole very trying night discharged their task of putting their point of view with considerable courtesy, which has pervaded our proceedings—in contrast, I gather, with events during recent nights.
We have reached a stage where we can say that there is the possibility of the Bill now becoming an Act which is socially useful, will help make this country a little more civilised, and will help make more integrated within the com-

munily a group which has for so long been alienated and had attached to its condition an unnecessary criminal stigma.
I believe that the Bill has had considerable benefits from having already been digested in another place. I hope that it will not be long before we send it there for its final confirmation so that Britain, like a great deal of the civilised world, will be able to say that her penal law has, at least in small measure, been brought nearer the point where we can really and truly be proud of it.

4.29 a.m.

Mr. Hogg: I hope not to spend many moments, but I have not hitherto expressed any opinion about the merits of the Bill. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for having said a kind word about the very few interventions I have made. He described them as helpful and constructive. I assure him that they were intended to be such.
The main issues in the Bill have neither excited in my mind the admiration which the hon. Gentleman evidently feels for it nor the detestation which has sometimes been expressed by its opponents. Until the last Amendment, which, I think, will prove to be a terrible mistake and which, I hope, will be remedied in another place' I had not felt there was need for very strong opinions to be expressed from either Front Bench. There is, however, one overwhelming argument for the Bill which I concede at once, and that is that it is difficult to justify the attachment of a criminal sanction to conduct which cannot be prevented or to keep in being a law which cannot be enforced.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove from the field of criminality homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. I concede that every year there is a very small number of prosecutions in respect of acts to which the Bill can possibly apply. But I can say this—and I think that I owe it to the House to say it. I have been connected with the legal profession for 35 years, and, although at one time or another I have had to deal with a number of homosexual cases, never have I handled a case in the criminal courts which would have been affected by the Bill.
In every case with which I have had anything to do, either the act was done in public or it was done to a person under 21 years of age. Therefore, the idea that a very large number of people should utter loud cheers because we have removed from the field of criminality something which is virtually never prosecuted excites my surprise rather than my enthusiasm.
There are two arguments for the Bill which I feel less enthusiasm for and about which I should like to express some doubts. Ever since Lord Jowitt made a speech on this matter in another place, it has been very widely said that such a Bill as this would prevent blackmail. I do not believe that. I also think that it is an argument which people should use with very great caution. We do a real disservice, not only to homosexuals, but to other people who are, and can be, blackmailed to pretend that blackmail is something which anybody ever need pay.
I beg the House to believe that nobody with a spark of intelligence or courage, whatever he has done, need ever pay a pennyworth of blackmail to anybody. If he is afraid to go to the police, let him go to a competent solicitor, who will tell him the answer. Do not let us pretend that that can be a justification or an advantage in altering the criminal law, because it is not so.
I have always recognised that in a purely permissive society there is a great deal to be said against punishing consenting adults in private if one catches them, which one seldom does, for their form of vice when there are many other equally disgusting and revolting practices which do not attract the criminal law. But, as I have no enthusiasm for the per-

missive society, that is an argument which appeals to me less than it does to a great many other people.
For these reasons, I cannot join the encomiums with which the hon. Member for Pontypool is, no doubt, about to be overwhelmed, or even his encomium of the Bill. It is a small Measure which will have very little effect on our social life. I give the hon. Gentleman high praise for his skill, his pertinacity, his reasonableness—except on the last Amendment—and his ingenuity. However, I view the Bill without favour, but without the lamentations of despair with which some of its opponents have greeted its passage through Parliament.

4.34 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I can share the feelings of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on the passage of this Bill, or at least on reaching Third Reading. It will not cause undue alarm nor have a devastating effect on the life of this country as we know it.
It is with a true sense of humility that I rise to address the House in a debate of this kind. It is by no means unnatural to have absolute revulsion against a Bill of this type. It would be impossible for normal people not to be extremely worried about it, as many of my constituents are.
With lack of charity and without venom, I say unequivocally that it was a bad Bill, to begin with, that it is a bad Bill now and that it will be a bad Bill till the end of time. It will be a bad Bill through time to eternity because homosexual acts are a perversion of a natural function.
To change the law of our own land, even though in conformity with other countries, would be retrograde step, a move toward perdition and an act of moral cowardice. These are strong words, which are so intended and which I believe are justified. As a Member of Parliament and of the Committee upstairs, I have listened attentively and respectfully to right hon. and hon. Member's demanding this change. There has been specious argument, tremendous rhetoric and wonderful eloquence in a base and unworthy cause, if one could call it a cause.
Having said that, one must also concede, which I do graciously, that the Bill


has been well presented. There was willingness to debate issues and Amendments and in conceding the request of the Merchant Navy and the National Maritime Board for Amendments, there has been demonstrated a readiness to placate. For small mercies, we are truly grateful.
As we have now reached a critical stage in the progress of that Bill, one must not and cannot let one's opinions and principles be vitiated or whittled down in any way. A modicum of tolerance and willingness to concede is always appreciated in this House and, to do him justice, the sponsor made a gesture and in so doing demonstrated a kind of courage, because he risked vexing some of his hon. Friends and endangering the progress of the Bill. He went out of his way to make good a glaring deficiency. It is to his credit, but it served only to make a thoroughly bad Bill a little more palatable.
My attitude towards this crime, which is what it has been for a long time and until this moment—and I do not want to be vitriolic about it—is, as always in every sphere and situation, to try to hate sin and love the sinner. I assure the House that it is in no holier-than-thou attitude that I am saying what is in my mind. If my own sins were written on my forehead, I would not be speaking here.
Not with the widest stretch of imagination can it be said that the Bill provides a real help for the homosexual as a person. That is what I am concerned about in the main and that is what I consider to be the gravest possible omission. That is what troubles me exceedingly about the Bill. We have plumbed the depths in our deliberations, and these matters take a lot of time, but there is no evidence that any person benefits as a person from indulging in homosexual acts. Rather is he kept immature and, consequently, prevented from attaining full development as a personality.
There is ample evidence that a homosexual cannot maintain a permanent relationship with another homosexual, but has to keep changing. This in itself is evidence of great instability, whereas the adapting of himself to life under his own difficult circumstances makes possible development to maturity which is not otherwise possible.
It cannot be denied that homosexual acts are a perversion of a natural func-

tion and if indulged in freely must of their very nature militate against the homosexual as a responsible and mature human being. It follows, therefore, as surely as night follows day, that since society is made up of individual human beings, the more immature human beings there are, the more society as a whole becomes immature.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is entering on a discourse on the nature of homosexuality. He must discuss the Bill. This is Third Reading, and he must confine his remarks to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Mahon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall endeavour to conform. as you have so kindly directed me.
It is some comfort that penalties have been increased for any attempt at corruption of the young, but, alas, one swallow does not make a summer. To me, this represents just one more palliative. Homosexuals seek out the young and are not easily deterred.
There has at no time been any attempt to wreck the Bill other than by talking about its defects. I remember that on Second Reading that accusation was levelled at hon. Members who dared to speak in a critical sense. We have continued similarly today. Mine is a frontal attack against the Bill, as I believe that it is inimical to the decency, dignity and moral fibre of the nation.
I strongly and conscientiously believe that the future will reveal that people who hold the view that the Bill will promote public morality are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. It is a grave misstatement to refer to homosexuality as a peripheral moral issue detracting from the apprehensions of the professional criminal. It is mischievous to blur the issue in this way. It is not only mischievous, but dangerous and dishonest.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is not in his place now, and has not been during the discussion on the Bill. I hope that he has a good reason for not being here. There was some doubt in his mind about the extent, and I think the sincerity, of some of the things that were said about the Bill. To relieve any dubiety which he may be feeling, may I say that I am against the Bill lock, stock and barrel,


root and branch, hook, line and sinker, warts and all.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend ought to make it clear that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is a sponsor of the Bill. He is in favour of it, and although the matter has been blurred by some of the opponents of the Bill, he has voted for it prior to today.

Mr. Mahon: I am aware of this, because I served on the Standing Committee. This is not my province, and I have great difficulty in understanding all the implications of it. I shall certainly give the palm to the hon. Member for Chelmsford for his brilliant advocacy in what he believes to be right. However, the Home Secretary skilfully glided away from any verbal combat, or anything prejudicial to what the hon. Gentleman was doing, and I think that I would do well to follow his example.
The hon. Gentleman said that we were drafting human beings into ghettoes. My reply to this is that even the worst types of criminal, in every capacity, including that of murder, are incarcerated for a comparatively short time. Plans for such people and their rehabilitation are always operative, and these should be extended and persevered with.Unfortunately, society must recognise—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Neither the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), nor his remarks, nor rehabilitation, are matters concerned with the Third Reading of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member will address his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Mahon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understood, and perhaps you will let me have your guidance in this matter, that it was permissible at this stage not only to discuss the Bill but to discuss the inimical effects which it will have on people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member can discuss only matters that are in the Bill. He may discuss whether these are good or bad, but I think that in his remarks he was getting away from even that interpretation of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Mahon: I think that the Bill is a bad Bill. I said so in the first instance, and I am continuing to say it with the

permission of the Chair. It is a bad Bill because, unfortunately, society must recognise—and I think it does as well as hon. Members do—the defects of the present situation. People recognise, too, that there is a growing number of depraved creatures who openly flaunt their depravity and laugh in the face of any well disposed person who suggests rehabilitation. I agree that this presents a great difficulty.
To suggest that the law as it stands puts good people who were born to carry this cross into ghettoes beyond the pale in society, to be treated as pariahs, is a travesty of the facts. There are always ways and means in Parliament by which we can react to great difficulties rather than wash our hands of the situation, as we have done in the manner of Pontius Pilate. I believe that the ever-increasing tendency to turn a blind eye will serve our country ill. Even now I have not been convinced—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters within the Bill. I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Mahon: That means that I shall have to delete some part of what I had wished to say. Even now, as I was about to say when I was called to order, the Bill is not well drafted. It fails lamentably, for example, to define "privacy". That will present great difficulties in the working of the Bill, and one can already see the rocks ahead. The more one ponders over the Bill, the more doubtful one becomes. Homosexual orgies, and the opportunity for blackmail will not be killed by its passing.
I say that we should be legislating to prevent homosexual practices and not spend time encouraging the scope of homosexuality. We are being asked to deal with this sickness. The Bill asks us to bless that sickness with lawful approval, but I question the right of the House to legislate in this way. Most people believe that homosexual practices are an offence, and that homosexuals, like "pop stars", are born and not made. When one finds a flaunting of homosexuality, one feels—if the House will forgive the colloquialism—the desire "to land him one in the chops". I say that this House should do the same to the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), in the process of seeking support for what he considers to be a measure of justice, is both popular and unpopular; popular and exasperating at the same time, although I find it difficult on personal grounds, even when he comes into the House looking like a fugitive from "Wagon Train", to be critical of him. My hon. Friend really does endeavour to please, but, in all sincerity, I question the right of the House to legislate in this way. Opinions have been expressed in the House that the people of the country are in favour of the Bill. They certainly are not in my part of the country. My hon. Friend has failed to please. He has not been in luck with this Bill, but I wish him better luck next time.

4.54 a.m.

Sir C. Taylor: This is a Bill about which many people feel very deeply. I know that the hon. Member who has just sat down feels very deeply about it and, whether his remarks were in order or not, surely we should all respect some of the things which he said from his heart. We should not laugh at them.
I preface my remarks by saying that I think it peculiar that, within four or five days, two Private Members' Bills have been before the House, and both sponsored by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Yes, sponsored by the Government. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill and this Bill, sponsored by the Government—both Private Members' Bills—have been taken over by the Government, and given time by the Government. The fact that these Bills have been so taken over is something which, in all the time I have been in this House, I have never known. They are two Bills about which the House feels keenly and upon which it is very strongly divided, and it is unthinkable that they should have been given time by the Government and become virtually Government Bills, and be pushed through the House.
One would have thought that the Home Secretary had enough on his plate to deal with crime—the shooting of bank employees, the taking of drugs by teenagers and the cases of rape, without taking the time of the House to deal

with a Bill which nobody really ever wanted. I am glad to say that nobody in my constituency wanted it, and I do not believe that many people in the country wanted it, either. This is another occasion where the Government are completely out of step with the people, who do not believe in buggery.
It would be churlish of me, on this occasion, not to congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on his Parliamentary performance, but the House of Commons—this honourable House—will regret the passage of the Bill in due course, as I regret it intensely. I have always been against it. I was against it when it was first introduced and I shall continue to be against it while the Bill goes through its other stages elsewhere. I deplore this evening's happenings.

4.58 a.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I want to intervene only briefly. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), being in his narrow-mindedness untypical even of his constituents, is fully entitled to his views about the Bill, which he has expressed at considerable length. But the majority opinion in the House is also entitled to its view, and I am surprised that he takes the view—with the House feeling as deeply about this subject as he says it does—that there is something inappropriate about the Government making it possible for the House to come to a decision on the Bill. That is all that the Government have done. The Government have not taken an attitude on the Bill, although I make no attempt to disguise the fact that my attitude throughout has been one of personal support for it.
The hon. Member tells me of all the other things that I should be doing; I endeavour to do what I can in the other fields, and the hon. Member is gravely mistaken if he thinks that we assist the police or the forces of law and order by keeping subject to the criminal law behaviour which great bodies of civilised opinion do not regard as criminal. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on getting the Bill through to its final stages and all hon. Members who


have sat up for the second all-night sitting in four days. Their labours have not been in vain.
Taking a higher view of the Bill than did the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), I believe that it is an important piece of social legislation which we have now put well on the way to the Statute Book. We cannot complain about the debate in the later stages of the night, although it is unfortunate that we had it at this time, and if the debate on the Friday that we discussed it had been of the same quality, all points of substance could have been discussed on that day. If this were not so, it is surprising that the Committee stage occupied this much of a Committee Hansard and went through in a single morning—

Mr. Goodhew: A third of the Members were not present in Committee.

Mr. Jenkins: That is another criticism of how seriously hon. Members take their duties in Committee and makes it the more inappropriate to hold up progress in the House.
This is the end of a long road. It is almost exactly seven years since my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health introduced a Motion in support of Wolfenden, which I had the honour to wind up, and we were defeated by a vote of more than two to one. Opinion has moved considerably since then in the House and, I believe—though we can all have our own views—in the country, and the position which we have now reached broadly mirrors that movement.
It would be a mistake to think—my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) has some curious views on this—that by what we are doing tonight we are giving a vote of confidence or congratulation to homosexuality. Those who suffer from this disability carry a great weight of loneliness, guilt and shame. The crucial question, which we are nearly at the end of answering decisively, is, should we add to those disadvantages the full rigour of the criminal law? By its overwhelming decisions, the House has given a fairly clear answer, and I hope that the Bill will now make rapid progress towards the Statute Book. It will be an important and civilising Measure.

5.4 a.m.

Mr. Mawby: The Home Secretary described this Bill as an important piece of social legislation. I disagree. One point which I found difficult to understand was that if we had acted in our Friday debate as we have acted tonight we would have done much better. I was here all that Friday and found little to complain about in hon. Members putting their valid points. On his point about the Committee stage, we should make it clear that points of order were raised then about hon. Members having been notified only two days before that they would be Members of the Committee, and, naturally, the Chairman would not accept starred Amendments. Hon. Members did not have time to table Amendments which could have been called.
This is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) tabled for Report the same Amendments which could not be called in Committee. That Committee stage was very short mainly because hon. Members knew of their selection very late—I do not complain about that—and because Amendments could not be called because they were starred. I hope that disposes of the argument, for so long put forward, that in some way hon. Members are being rather naughty in having only a short Committee stage and then a long Report stage. It was the only action which opponents of the Bill could take when faced with that situation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was pleased that there had been a change of opinion. Obviously one can measure the change of opinion in this House by Divisions on the Bill tonight compared with some time ago, but the change of opinion among hon. Members is not reflected throughout the country. Many people in the country still believe that this is a bad Bill. They take much the same line as was taken by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), who opposed the Bill hook, line and sinker and would like it to be sunk.
On Third Reading one must deal only with what is in the Bill. It is completely illogical, and I believe it has been all the way through, that in Clause 1(5) the whole of the Army, Navy and Air Force are exempt from the operations of the Bill. If it is such a good Bill, there must


be a very valid reason why those men are left out of its provisions. It may be that it is felt that it would be bad for good order and discipline. One has to look wider than the Armed Forces to see who should be exempted. It may be felt that it would endanger security in the Forces. If so, many sections, particularly those who have signed undertakings under the Official Secrets Act, should be looked at to make certain whether they should be exempt.
The most illogical act was in Committee when the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) introduced a new Clause exempting crews of the Merchant Navy. He asked the Committee to accept the new Clause not necessarily on the ground of logicality. Even the sponsor of the Bill accepted that it had lost its logicality, if it ever had any, by that proposed exemption. I agree that on Second Reading very powerful arguments were put forward for preventing homosexual acts in the Merchant Navy to be included. Just as good arguments have been put forward concerning other walks of life. The Bill has been made more illogical than it was before.
Clause 3 is completely contrary to what the sponsors always said. They said they wanted the Bill to do two things: to legalise acts between consenting adults in private and to increase penalties against those who interfere with children. Yet Clause 3 drastically reduces penalties which can be suffered by a man committing buggery with a boy of 16 or over.
A point which has been missed, and this again may be part of the illogicality, was that an Amendment was tabled to Clause 5(3) dealing with living on the earnings of male prostitution. That subsection says:
Anyone may arrest without a warrant a person found committing an offence under this section.
Surely that is one of the points which ought to be cleared up. To perpetuate the position of what could be no more or less than the public informer, who needs no warrant and who under this subsection can presumably arrest anybody on his suspicion that a person is in breach of Clause 5 is an oversight—unless there is some reason for it which completely escapes me.
The greatest illogicality of all is that the Act will not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. I can understand it not applying to Northern Ireland, but I cannot understand why Scotland and England should be split in this way unless the sponsors realised that if they included Scotland, all Scottish Members would descend in their wrath and vote solidly against the Bill. That may be the main reason why Scotland and Northern Ireland were excluded.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does not my hon. Friend think that it may also be the reason why the Bill has been discussed on a Monday evening and not, say, on a Wednesday evening?

Mr. Mawby: I cast no aspersions on anyone. The Government have given time for the Bill, and it happens to be on a Monday. That is not completely satisfactory to country Members, and particularly Scottish members, but I would not accuse the Leader of the House of having that in mind when he decided to put the Bill down for Monday night. It may well be that he had it in mind, but I know the difficulties of the Leader of the House in fitting all the business into a pattern, and I am casting no aspersions at him.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member may be casting no aspersions on the Leader of the House, but he is certainly casting aspersions on Scottish Members. Is it not a complete myth that they are not here on a Monday?

Mr. Mawby: I do not know whether it is a complete myth. I have been in the House for a long time and I have certainly never before seen so many Liberal Members here at this time of the morning. It is obviously a very important subject for Liberals, including Scottish Liberals, to be present at this time. But that is purely by the way.
No one can be in any doubt about my attitude to the Bill, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypool on the tremendous work which he has put in. However we may feel about the Bill, he has put a great deal of endeavour into it, and it would be wrong if I did not offer him my congratulations on the work that he has done and the success which he has obviously had.

5.13 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I shall not detain the House for more than a moment in adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). In making my only intervention in the debates on the Bill, it is appropriate that I should follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), because I want to take the opportunity to correct a point which was made by another opponent of the Bill, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), inaccurately, and I have no doubt inadvertently, in the course of the discussion of the question of consent on Report. He said:
I think that it must be within the knowledge of all right hon. and hon. Members that it is commonly rumoured—and certainly there is no reason to doubt the general correctness of the rumours—that employment in various walks of life, particularly in reference to the stage and entertainment world, cinema and television, can very often be obtained only as a result of willingness on the part of the individual to participate in the kinds of acts dealt with in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 2182.]
That is sheer nonsense. I have been engaged in the world of entertainment as an official of Actors' Equity, the trade union concerned, for 15 years. During that time many hundreds of contracts came to my knowledge. Not on any occasion was I ever aware of any inducement of this sort ever being offered to any of the members of the Association as an attraction, as it were, to engagement. Therefore, I think that this sort of rumour, which possibly passes around as some sort of a joke, should not be held out as something which really happens. It does not in fact happen at all.
Of course, it is true that the existence of homosexuality has for many years been very generally accepted and recognised on the stage, and I do not think it is any the less healthy for that. On the contrary, I would suggest to the House that it is perhaps more healthy to recognise that it does in fact exist, and the passage of this Bill, which I very warmly welcome, will do something to remove the whole thing from the feverish imagination which starts this sort of rumour or story, and bring it out as a normal fact of life, in which a relatively small section of the community is in the position of deserving our sympathy rather than our condemnation, since, for example, the members of that small

section of the community can never have their hearts lifted by the sight of a mini skirt.
I think that the House in considering this whole matter will regard this Bill as a civilising Measure in as much as it will remove the facts of homosexuality from the area of the dirty corner, the dark cupboard, and specious speculation, out into the light of day, and make it possible to look on it with acceptance, with understanding, and without the sniggering and purience with which it has been received too often in the past. For these reasons I warmly welcome the Bill, and I greet my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) with congratulations, not unmixed with envy, in as much as I myself have on the stocks a Bill which has not yet reached this stage, though I hope very much that it will before very long.

5.17 a.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I personally feel so very strongly opposed to this Bill that I cannot with sincerity apologise to the House, or to the servants of the House, whom we must not forget, for speaking against it even at this late hour and at this late stage.
On Third Reading one must get away from details and must look at the Bill's broad issues. Firstly, I am not suggesting that the existing law, as we have it at the moment, is perfect. Nobody says that. Nobody says that if we were starting completely from scratch, with a clean slate, the law would be as it is now, or should be as it is now, but the point is that we are not starting with a clean slate, and I believe that the worst thing about this Bill is that the change which the Bill, if it is passed, will bring about in the law will produce such evil effects, because I believe that the change is bound to be interpreted as connivance in and even encouragement of what, surely, must always remain a social evil. Even the sponsors of the Bill claim that they do not wish to encourage an increase in homosexuality. That is right, is it not? If we grant them sincerity on this point we must, I think, nevertheless accuse them of very bad judgment, because surely the effect of this change in the law cannot fail to bring about what the sponsors claim they do not wish to see.
What will the effects of the Bill be if it does come into law? First, what will


be its effect on the young men of the country? It will remove a taboo which has been recognised here from time immemorial. It is likely to lead to experiment and, perhaps, to corruption and scandal. I say in all sincerity that it is not fair to expose a whole generation, which faces all the bewilderment of swift social change, to these additional dangers, confusions and temptations.
Secondly, what will be its effect on homosexuals themselves? I believe that the Bill will not afford them any protection whatever from blackmail or from ostracism—unless homosexual practices are to become so widespread as to be common place. The whole argument that the Measure will remove the danger of blackmail from homosexuals is altogether misleading.
Thirdly, what will be the effect of the Bill on public opinion abroad? I submit that it can only be catastrophic. One can imagine the headlines in foreign newspapers when, or if, the Bill is passed: "Britain Votes for Homosexuality", "Parliament Passes the Queers' Charter," and so on. In a world all too ready to criticise us—and I will not make party points now—this Bill will be further evidence of Britain's degeneracy and loss of influence, and a loss, I am afraid, of individual will power. Such a Bill as this, if passed, can only encourage our enemies and those who disparage us, and can only dismay our friends.
Lastly, what will be the effect on public opinion generally in Britain itself? I believe, as other hon. Members have said, that the lobby which supports the sponsors of the Bill does not truly represent the opinion of decent and reasonable people in Britain as a whole. If the House gives the Third Reading to an obnoxious Bill like this, the people of Britain will suddenly awaken to what is being done in their name and will react very violently to it. I hope that every newspaper will pulish a full list of those who vote for the Bill, including the Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I believe that every family man and woman will take note, and make their judgment accordingly.

5.23 a.m.

Mr. John Farr: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

Winchester (Rear Admiral Morgan Giles) spoke of the effect abroad of the possible passing of this Measure. I can endorse what he says, because a week or two ago I was abroad and was confronted by two or three people the vein of whose conversation was, "Why is it that the British House of Commons" which is how they describe us "at this great moment in world affairs, when they have the Arabs and the Israelis at each others' throats, have right to the forefront of their domestic politics not only this Bill to legalise homosexuality, but another Measure to legalise abortion and a third relating to drugs?" Whether or not we in this House like it, those are the sort of issues that make the headlines not so much at home but abroad, and notably in countries that are not particularly favourably disposed towards us.
I find it remarkable and regrettable that the House should spend so long, and stay up so late into the following morning, on a petty and deplorable issue of this nature. I speak in condemnation of the Bill as an extension of the permissive society, which is very regrettable. I never thought that I would be in the House of Commons long enough to hear a Home Secretary congratulate the promoter and architect of such an unfortunate Measure as this.
If I were Home Secretary—and I am certain that I never will be—if that cloak of honour were to fall on my humble shoulders, I would keep quiet about such a Measure. I would say nothing about it. If it got through it would not be with my endeavours. Certainly, if it were pushed through to the Statute Book with the aid and connivance of the party of which I was a member, I should be even more ashamed. It is no use the Home Secretary and hon. Members opposite saying that this is not a party matter. This is a Labour Government Measure, and tonight we have had Labour Whips at the doors of the Lobby.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Farr: I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to intervene in a moment. He must be patient. I have sat all night listening to many other people. I was pointing out that there is no doubt that the Government decision to give time for the Bill means that it


bears the stamp of Labour Party legislation.

Mr. Lyon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he realise how false is his suggestion? I have been engaged in watching hon. Members pass through the Lobbies throughout the night. Without the assistance of his right hon. and hon. Friends, we could not have got the Closure on a number of occasions. In any case, the Tellers in support of the Bill included both Conservative and Labour Members. The whipping was done jointly by hon. Members from both parties. The hon. Member's assertion that this is a party Bill is completely spurious and a base attempt to suggest that there is party political capital to be made out of it.

Mr. Farr: rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Farr: I wish to conclude my remarks in a moment or two. I, too, want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I admire his shrewdness and skill in piloting this controversial and difficult Measure as far as this. I cannot wish him luck. I am only sorry that his obvious talents have been channelled into such an unnatural and perverse activity as piloting a wretched Measure like this through the House.
I deplore the whole of this Measure, and I am only sorry that it will probably pass tonight on its way to another place. If it comes back here, I hope that we may yet have an opportunity to prevent its enactment.

5.29 a.m.

Mr. Percival: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke in slightly deprecating terms of lamentations and despair. I have no shame in saying that I feel a sense of despair when I think of all the useful things we might have been doing with the very large amount of time which has been devoted to this miserable Measure. In deference to the Chair and to the servants of the House, I shall confine myself to just three reasons why I feel this sense of shame.
First, I despair of the fatuousness of it all. This Measure was greeted with elation. The Home Secretary is here in the early hours of the morning congratu-

lating my hon. Friends. What have we done? As my right hon. Friends says, it will not mean a single prosecution less than there has been for years and years. No one that I know can remember any prosecution which has taken place in recent memory which would not still be prosecutable under the Bill, if passed.
Secondly, does anybody believe that what we have done will contribute anything to that to which we should be applying our minds, which is decreasing the amount of homosexuality? It cannot do anything useful in that direction. Nobody can say, so I do not put it any higher than that it might increase the amount of homosexuality. If it does, is it not a sad thing that we have done? Is it so wrong to feel a sense of despair that we might have done something to increase practises which all who have spoken are agreed—I cannot speak for the Leader of the House because we have not heard his views—are unpleasant and degrading, having an inherent tendency to corrupt public morals?
What have we ended up by doing? If one starts with the hypothesis that is accepted by everybody, that this is something to be discouraged because it brings great misery to the people who get hooked and because it tends to corrupt public morals, we have done nothing to reduce the number of prosecutions, we have done nothing to decrease the amount of homosexuality, but we have done something which might increase it. That gives me a slight sense of despair, and I despair at the failure of the House to secure any improvement in the contents of the Bill.
Two very interesting questions have arisen in the course of the debate. I will not go into the details of them. The first was doubt about the meaning of "in private" and the second was about the Director of Public Prosecutions. What has happened? Instead of those matters being debated in full, the promoters conceding that even they might have something to learn, they have been brushed aside. I despair that, despite all this time having been spent on the matter, no improvements have been made in the contents of the Bill.
Lastly—though when I say "lastly" it is by no means the only other feeling


that I have about the matter; I say "lastly" because I am trying to be selective and I have chosen the three matters which are most prominent in my mind—I despair because there is a danger that what we have done is another step down the road to the deplorable permissive society.
There are those of us who may be called old-fashioned. So be it. "Old-fashioned" nowadays is a comment used of someone who takes a different opinion. In this context I am not afraid of being called old-fashioned. One of the tragedies of modern society is the unwillingness of the older generation to give to the younger generation the guidance to which it is entitled. I am not talking about ramming ideas down its throat or forcing it to do this, that or the other. Any parent knows that it is not practicable anyway. I am talking about the guidance to which young people are entitled which, when they receive it, they can accept or reject. This derisive attitude to another point of view is typical of the arrogance of those who promote this kind of proposition. It is extraordinary how those who advocate this kind of legislation do so in the name of tolerance, because they are the most intolerant people when it comes to other people's ideas.
One of the most priceless assets in life is a set of standards, a code of morals, or a code of conduct. A man without it is lost and wanting. At the moment, under the guise of giving freedom to young people, we are depriving them of the guidance to which they are entitled. No wonder they are mixed up. No one would deny that there are a lot of mixed up young people, and they are mixed up because they are not getting guidance.
This Bill is another step down that road. Instead of giving young people firm guidance on this subject, we are creating the impression in their minds that, even if people commit offences, they are not very serious ones and carry only small penalties. I despair of that tendency, when it is important for people to have some sort of standards by which to regulate their conduct. No one is perfect, and no one lives entirely by those standards, but people who have a code of conduct have something which is extremely useful to them on their way through life.
That is another reason why I deplore this bad Bill. I shall vote against its Third Reading, and I hope that many other hon. Members will do the same.

5.37 a.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I apologise for detaining the House, but before we come to a conclusion on the Bill, it might not be thought amiss if I said a word or two as one who supports the Bill and intends to vote for its Third Reading.
I might point out that I have not been whipped by anyone in support of this Measure, and it is a Bill which has twice been approved by another place and which was given a Second Reading by a very large all party majority. As one who has been in the House for some time, I am aware that it is not unprecedented for the Government of the day to make time available for a controversial Private Member's Measure, even when that Government have not approved of it. I recall that time was made available for a Bill to repeal the death penalty, introduced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) in 1956. It is by no means unprecedented for the Government to present an opportunity of this kind.
The Bill is one which affects the criminal law. Many writers have pointed out that, throughout our history, it has been very easy to add to the criminal law, but very much harder to subtract from it, and perhaps the prolonged proceedings on this Measure give support to that view.
I believe that, rightly, the Bill humanises our criminal law, and I do not think that we need worry that other people will take it as a sign of Britain's degeneracy. I am not greatly concerned about what opinion overseas will think of it. The House of Commons is right to do what we think is proper and to pursue what we think are the right ideals for British society.
Next, we should be very chary of the argument that we must keep this criminal offence for the sake of our young people. Frankly, I do not despair of our young people in the way that some of my hon. Friends appear to. Perhaps I can claim to be as much in touch as some other hon. Members with younger people in this


country, and I do not find this universal absence of standards which my hon. Friend has just postulated.

Mr. Percival: My right hon. Friend thought I was saying that I despaired of young people, but he could not be wider of the mark. I must have expressed myself badly. I think young people are magnificent, but what I am saying is that the older generation are letting them down by failing to give them the guidance to which they are entitled.

Sir E. Boyle: I think there may well be times when it is desirable to listen to what younger people have to say, and not only to be concerned with giving them guidance.
I do not find this absence of standards. I cannot help thinking that one of the most important standards anyone can have is regard for maturity. Maturity was defined by Dr. Carstairs in his Reith Lectures as being possessed by someone with a realistic grasp of his environment, a convinced sense of his personal identity, and a real ability to form satisfying relationships with other people. This is

Division No. 426.]
AYES
[5.44 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Albu, Austen
Hooley, Frank
Pardoe, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Allen, Seholefield
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurence


Archer, Peter
Huckfield, L.
Reynolds, G. W.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Barnes, Michael
Hunt, John
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Booth, Albert
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Ryan, John


Brooks, Edwin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sharpies, Richard


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Channon, H. P. G.
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Chapman, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawahaw, Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Skeffington, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dalyell, Tam
Kirk, Peter
Stonehouse, John


Dell, Edmund
Longden, Gilbert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Luard, Evan
Swinger, Stephen


Dunnett, Jack
Lubbock, Eric
Taverns, Dick


Ellis, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


English, Michael
MacDermot, Niall
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Walters, Dennis


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitaker, Ben


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendeleon, J. J.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&amp;Stone)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gardner, Tony
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stan
Yates, Victor


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Eric G. Varley and




Mr. Ian Gilmour.

something which I think young people must find for themselves.

I cannot see anything in this Bill that will make it harder for young people in this country to discover for themselves ideals and standards with which they can truly feel identified.

The other point I would make—and I have not heard it made by any other hon. Member during the proceedings on this Bill—is this; think how much more we know today about the problems of homosexuality—and indeed about human love generally—than was known when this first became a criminal offence.

I believe we are quite right to feel that the time has come to make this change in the criminal law, and I would say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) that I shall not mind at all if my name is taken when we go into the Lobby to vote on this Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 14.

NOES


Cordle, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, G. B.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray



Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sir Charles Taylor and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian
Mr. James Allason.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

YORK (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

5.50 a.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It is something of an anti-climax to come down from the heights of passion and the torrents of eloquence which have blown about the Bill which we have just considered to deal with a mundane constituency matter. However, it is a matter of the greatest importance to all my constituents in York. It is of no mean importance to the country at large, because the city of York is one of the most important places in the country. It has a history going back almost 1,900 years which is besprinkled by incidents common to the narrative of the whole of English history. The city is a living monument to much which has passed in the story of this island. For this reason alone, the country has a real interest in what happens within the confines of the city boundaries.
Here is one of the greatest churches in Christendom. Here is the largest of the medieval centres of this country. Here are some of the finest pieces of Georgian architecture to be found in the country. It is this which the country knows. To some extent, it is an unfortunate factor in making known some of the problems of the city. People know about the historical associations and architectural merits of York. What is not so well known is the real difficulties of economic development of the city.
It is a city with low unemployment. It has achieved a certain stability, a certain plateau of development. But it has not expanded much in recent years and shows little sign of expansion in the coming years, save for two exceptions to

which I shall refer. As a result, it has a comparatively low rateable value.
I asked the Ministry of Housing and Local Government what was the product of a penny rate of all the cities in England with populations of between 90,000 and 110,000. Of the dozen or so cities concerned, the rateable value of York was very much less than the average. For instance, compared with Oxford, which is virtually the same size and has many of the same problems, it has a little over 50 per cent. of the rateable value. The product of a penny rate in York is £15,000. In Oxford, it is £29,000.
It is obvious that in such a situation there is a great call upon scarce resources to provide the normal amenities for a city of 100,000 people, but when the additional burden of preserving this historic core as a lasting monument for the nation, and as a living reality of the pattern of English life, is added to the normal calls on the local authority's public purse, clearly a city so poor in its rateable value is bound to be faced with grave difficulties. It is not only the purse of the City Treasurer but those of the average housewife and of the man within that city which are affected, because if York has low unemployment it also has low wages. The situation is perhaps not as bad as in some of the worst depressed areas, but it is low in comparison to the average for the country and the reason is not far to see.
Many jobs are available within the city, but they are mainly confined to a few large firms. The result is that one does not have a scattered number of smaller business premises whose aggregate rateable value is higher than the present rateable value. Equally, there is not a large number of competing firms whose demands for labour and whose competing wage rates are likely to raise the level of wage rates in the area. If York is not simply to stagnate, it is necessary that there should be greater diversity of employment, giving greater opportunities to workpeople in the city and equally, that there should be higher


rateable value from the growth of businesses and commercial premises in the city.
What is necessary has to be found by the efforts of many people. Industry has a part to play by its own expansion and the attraction of subsidiaries. I am impressed by the efficiency of the industry I have seen while I have been the Member for the city. The same is true of the city council which has a large part to play planning the development of the economy of the city. I am concerned with the part the Government can play in this development, because there is a sense in which the efforts of the city council or of business in the area can be frustrated by lack of effort by the Government in persuading industry to move there.
Clearly, in an area which has so much historic worth and architectural merit, the amount of commercial or business development which would be suitable has necessarily to be limited. It is impossible to set down inside York any kind of heavy industry which would be clearly out of sympathy with and in defiance of planning such as one finds in a city like York, but something can be done to direct there commercial development, particularly the kind associated with government and branches of regional government in the area.
I take as the text for what I have to say a paragraph from the survey made by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, published late last year, which states that
The City of York is a special case with acute planning problems of a local character. A solution to York's problems, in particular road communications, must, in the Councils view, precede any further expansion, and when expansion can take place full account must be taken of the importance of the City from the historic and architectural points of view. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government has recently selected York as one of the five towns which will be the subject of a special study for the preservation of their historic character.
It is clear from that view of the planning council that the infrastructure of the city must be right before it can hope to attract the kind of development that is vitally necessary.
Roads are specifically mentioned, and roads are important. We badly need an

outer ring road, because we have a higher proportion of through traffic than most cities of 100,000 population. Forty per cent. of the traffic which passes through York is through traffic and yet it has to pass through streets which were designed for the days of mediaeval transport and not for the days of the motor car.
I recognise that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary is not associated with the Ministry of Transport, but I hope that he will urge upon the Ministry of Transport the needs of the city in relation to the outer ring road, and also the inner ring road, to reduce the amount of through traffic and to make possible the expansion which is desirable in that sense. It is equally true that communication with the Great North Road could also be improved to make the already good communications by rail and by road better still.
Because of the problems which I have indicated, York is in rather the same situation as many of the grey areas to which attention has been drawn in the House in recent debates. The Government have promised to consider the needs of the grey areas and to see how, for instance, the premium which has been introduced for development areas might be adapted to those grey areas. I hope that consideration will be given to the needs of York when decisions are made about the premium for the grey areas, because York is only on the border of a development area.
The Northern Development Area is in the Northern Planning Area and it comes to the boundary of the city with the North Riding. Therefore, part at least of the industry of York is in the northern suburbs, which are outside the city boundary but are actually inside the development areas whereas the city itself is not. Clearly, such a dichotomy can lead to imbalance in the future development of the city, and I hope that attention will be given to the whole of the unit of the urban area of York in any decisions which are made about development premiums or development grants and allowances.
Finally, I come to the nub of the problem. There are projects which the Government themselves control. There are projects which can be allocated by the Government because they have the final decision within their own hands.


Some of these projects are rightly being allocated to development areas, but there are areas like York where it is impossible to attract business or development of a heavy industrial type. It is difficult to attract stew industry of even a light industrial type where there is already a low rate of unemployment.
Therefore, there is a special responsibility upon the Government, who not only assign projects but can also provide labour in order to give the necessary boost to development which will expand the city to a more reasonable size whereby it can carry the full weight of providing for the needs of its citizens and for the very real problems which are almost unique to an historic centre.
One of the projects I have in mind is the North-Eastern Computer Centre which at the moment is under consideration by the Government. It is no secret that the Government are disposed to put this project in a development area, although the staff have said on a number of occasions that they would much prefer it to come to York, as this is the best site for it. It is said that the objection to York is that it will not be able to provide the replacement staff when such replacement is necessary, but if this he the case, and this is the real objection to York, I can only say that in no part of the economy of York where a quota is required by Government regulation, or by voluntary agreement, in the allocation of teachers, in the allocation of policemen, firemen, or whatever it is, York has always been up to the quota. It has never anxiously tried to make up the quota because it is such a desirable place in which to live that it has no difficulty in attracting labour, provided the work is available. It is for this reason that there has always been a balance in the economy, that labour has come to the work, and it is for this reason that I think there will be no difficulty in providing the labour for a computer centre if the Government decide to site it in the area.
I mentioned that there were two possible hopes of expansion. One is the university, which has brought work to the city, and has brought a promise of even more work in the future. Unfortunately it lies immediately outside the city boundaries, and cannot contribute to the rate-

able value of the city. It is one of my deep regrets that the Minister of Housing and Local Government refused to accept the recommendations of the Local Government Commission which would have included the University within the city. It is clearly right and appropriate that it should be included within it, and I hope that when the Royal Commission reports it will be clear that not only the University, but all the large urban area of York, which is separated from any other urban area by 25 miles of agricultural land, shouts to he part of one community.
I think that I have taken more time than I intended. The Government have at any rate allocated to York the headquarters of the new combined Eastern and North-Eastern Region. We hope that this is a start, and that it will not be the end of the help which the Government can give to the city.

6.9 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) on putting with such clarity at this hour in the morning the problems of the city of York which he so ably represents. I think that I might also add as a matter for congratulation that he should be here so tenaciously, having endured a long night of debate, to raise these questions at six o'clock in the morning.
I assure my hon. Friend that we share his view about the distinction and the history of the city of York. As he reminded us, for many hundreds of years, from Roman and mediaeval times, it was second only to London in size and importance, especially as a religious and administrative centre. The result is a heritage of architectural beauty and distinction, and a national treasure which needs to be preserved.
The city has been, and remains, an important centre of commerce and industry, and its status was further enhanced by the establishment in 1962 of the University of York. The population of York has remained static at around 105,000, but the population of what we could call greater York—the area beyond the city's green belt—has risen from about 132,000


in 1959 to about 142,000 in 1965. That is a rise of the order of 7 per cent.
York's challenge for the future is pretty clear. It is to promote its economic advance while preserving its historic and architectural distinction. This challenge will call for the most careful planning of future economic development, and I should like to turn now to the question of employment and the trends of employment in the city and the county. The structure of employment in the city is somewhat different from the rest of the Yorkshire and Humberside regions. There are, for example, considerably fewer people in manufacturing industry than in the rest of the region, but there are more employed in services generally, including a rather higher than average percentage in transport.
Looking at the different categories, I think one could sum up as follows, in manufacturing industry, the situation has remained nearly stable in recent years, although there was a small decrease in the years 1959–65. While no fewer than 43 industrial development certificates were issued for the York employment exchange area between 1959 and 1967—for a total of about 900.000 square feet of factory space—these developments were expected to provide additional direct employment for only about 800 people.
In transport and the communications field, the numbers employed have declined considerably. In 1959, the total was 8,200 and this fell to 6,800 in 1965, but, while York has found its dependence on railway employment reduced, it will remain a most important rail centre. The British Railways workshops, engaged in the construction and repair of carriages and containers, were selected for development in the 1962 plan, and the numbers employed there have risen from 1,800 in 1962 to 2,500 in 1966.
Turning to office and commercial employment, or service employment, the situation is rather more hopeful. Over the years 1959 to 1965, employment in professional and scientific services has risen from 6,200 to 7,800, and in particular the university, founded as my hon. Friend has said, in 1962, has already achieved a considerable reputation for its fresh approach to traditional methods of study in collaboration with the four

associated research institutes established in the city. The total population of graduate and undergraduate students is expected to reach 1,800 in this current year, and three thousand by 1971–72.
We have the establishment of the headquarters of the newly merged North-Eastern and Eastern Regions of British Railways, and a large new office building is being constructed for this purpose. Under the merger plans, more than a thousand staff will move from London to Peterborough and to York, and a smaller number—about a hundred—will move from Newcastle. York was chosen by the railways—on whom responsibility for this decision rested—because of its excellent position in relation to other rail centres, but, as my hon. Friend knows, there are no definite plans for moving regional centres of Government Departments to York.
I will not say that the door is completely closed, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I do not know of anything in the pipeline. It is true, however, that the location of the Inland Revenue P.A.Y.E. centre for the North-East has yet to be finally determined, but it is only fair to tell my hon. Friend that there is strong competition from other towns and centres in the northern and north-eastern parts of Britain.
There is one other feature of employment in York which I should mention, and that is tourism. Here the city's great historical and architectural merit gives it obvious potential as a tourist centre. An illustration of this is provided by the estimate of the Friends of York Minister that over a million people visited the Minster in 1966, including 100,000 overseas visitors. The Minster is only one of a large number of historic and achitectural treasures which the city possesses. As an important tourist city it has the advantage of its position on the main line between the tourist centres of London and Edinburgh.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the anxieties about employment, and about the relatively low level of wages. I cannot either confirm or contradict his view that wages in York are lower than in other parts of the country, but if they are similar to wages paid in the Yorkshire and Humberside region as a whole his argument is almost certainly true,


because wages there in manufacturing industry are lower than is general throughout the country. This may reflect the relative lack of manufacturing industry in the city area, but I am not absolutely certain—without investigation I cannot be categoric—about the cause. As for I.D.C. policy, the Board of Trade is pursuing a pretty liberal policy. By that I mean that firms already in York or in other parts of the Yorkshire and Humberside region who wish to move to York have readily been given consents since 1964.
As to whether York could be considered a grey area—that is a matter which the Yorkshire and Humberside Council will be pursuing first in discussions among themselves and secondly, no doubt, in the committee under Sir Joseph Hunt that the First Secretary of State has recently announced. I agree that there is a problem arising from the fact that York is on the fringes of a development area, and while, inevitably, on some occasions a city must be on the fringes of a development area, that is not to say that no problem arises from the fact.
I now turn briefly to the question of the physical problems of York, and I want to refer to two matters which my hon Friend raised. One of the problems of York is that it is confined within its present local government boundaries. As my hon. Friend knows, the Local Government Commission made proposals which would have increased the city's population. Had that proposal been accepted it would have reduced considerably the resources of neighbouring authorities, especially the North Riding, and in view of the more far-reaching proposals which are likely to emerge from the present Royal Commission on Local Government the Minister of Housing and Local Government has decided to make

no significant adjustments until the Royal Commission has reported. He intends to ensure that there will be room for expansion in the interim period, and although approval has been given in principle to a green belt round the city to help preserve its special character, sufficient land is allocated to accommodate natural growth in the immediate future.
As to the local yield of rates, to some extent this is bound up with the question of the actual physical frontiers of the city of York. I cannot say more than I have already said about the Royal Commission's consideration of future boundaries, but the low yield of rates within the city is substantially corrected by the Exchequer grant. This largely offsets the relatively low yield from the rates.
The last thing I want to say about York's physical problems is to endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the problem of the roads and communications through and within the city of York. This is a very important matter, and I know that much thought and planning is going on, both in connection with the inner ring, which is the responsibility of the city corporation, and the outer ring, in which other authorities are involved. Certainly no one should doubt that this is of great importance.
The city of York, as my hon. Friend reminded us, is one of the five towns chosen to be the subject of pilot studies on the problems of preservation and change in our historic towns.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes past Six o'clock a.m.